[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16970
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed MCRC No. 1704 of 2026
by ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.04.15 Suraj Singh S/o Yashwant Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Muktipara, Atal
10:54:36
+0530
Awas Ambikapur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G.
(Details As Per Annexure A/1)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.), P.S.
Gandhinagar, District Sarguja C.G.(District Name Wrongly Mentioned In
Annexure A/1)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13.04.2026
1.
This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 133/2025
registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the
offence under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this
Court in MCRC No. 4563 of 2025 vide order dated 16.04.2025.
3. prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.02.2025, during patrolling near
Banaras Road P.G. College, a bag was recovered from the possession of
the primary accused, Prince Gupta, containing Rexogesic
(Buprenorphine) Injection IP, 2 ml ampoules (100 units), Avil
(Pheniramine Maleate) Injection IP, 10 ml vials (100 units), and Onerex
Codeine Phosphate Cough Syrup, 100 ml bottles (totaling 1200 ml). The
primary accused, Prince Gupta, in his memorandum statement, allegedly
stated that the seized injections were purchased by him from the present
applicant and another co-accused for personal use as well as for sale.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that they have
been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged
contraband was not seized from the exclusive possession of the
applicant. It is also submitted that a co-accused, namely Chetan
Agrawal, has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 17223/2025 vide order dated 12.12.2025.
Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted regular bail on the
ground of parity.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant
opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the co-
accused, namely, Chetan Agrawal, has already been granted bail by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking
into account that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on
merits by this Court in MCRC No. 4563 of 2025 vide order dated
16.04.2025, it is noted that a co-accused, namely Chetan Agrawal, has
already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Crl.) No. 17223/2025 vide order dated 12.12.2025, the applicant has
been in custody since 21.05.2025, conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time. In view of the prolonged custody of the applicant, this
Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail
in the present case.
8. Let the Applicant - Suraj Singh, involved in Crime No. 133/2025
registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the
offence under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond
with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that
he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case
of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial
court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders
in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during
trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation
under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant
fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate
proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before
the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial
court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to
treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed
against him in accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek
