[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16950
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 3344 of 2026
Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana S/o. Late Baliram Verma Aged About 44
Years R/o Birkona Thana, Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13.04.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular
bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
429/2025, registered at Police Station- Masturi District- Bilaspur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 01.07.2025, the police of Police
Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), received credible
information from an informant that one Neeraj Verma @ Monu
Verma, a resident of Village Pandhi, was transporting illicit
contraband (ganja) from Bargarh, Odisha, in a grey coloured Maruti
Wagon R bearing registration No. CG-10-BQ-9133, for the purpose
of illegal sale and was proceeding via Jayramnagar towards
Ganiyari-Kota. Acting upon the said information, the police team,
along with independent witnesses and necessary equipment,
proceeded to the location near Tihara-point, Jayramnagar. The said
vehicle was intercepted and upon inquiry, the driver disclosed his
identity as Neeraj Verma @ Monu Verma. After due verification and
preparation of necessary panchnama, a search of the vehicle was
conducted.
During the search, a total of 19 packets containing contraband
ganja were recovered from the vehicle, kept in separate bags and
polythene packets, weighing in aggregate 20.100 kilograms. The
contraband was duly seized in the presence of witnesses in
accordance with law. On the basis of memorandum statements of
the accused persons, including the present applicant Adeep Kumar
Verma @ Tengna, it has been alleged that co-accused Vinod
Verma @ Vinod Kumar Adhauliya had earlier supplied
approximately 5 kilograms of ganja to the applicant, which was
stored by him and later handed over to another person on the
instructions of the said co-accused. It is further alleged that the
applicant was paid monetary consideration for storing the
contraband. Accordingly, offence under Sections 20(b) and 29 of
the NDPS Act has been registered against the accused persons.
After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused
namely Vinod Kumar whose bail was rejected by this Court in
MCRC No. 8470/2025 vide order dated 11.11.2025. Being
aggrieved by the said rejection, co-accused Vinod Kumar preferred
a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the matter, was pleased
to grant bail to co-accused in SLP (Criminal) No. 19291/2025, vide
order dated 01.04.2026. (Copy of the order is annexed herewith as
Annexure A-3). In view of the bail granted to the co-accused in an
identical set of facts and circumstances, the present applicant also
prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
grant of bail and submits that the present applicant is not entitled to
bail merely on the ground of parity. It is contended that the role of
the present applicant is distinct and specific and he is actively
involved in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that
the offence is of serious nature under the NDPS Act and the
contraband recovered is of commercial quantity and moreover, the
applicant had three previous criminal antecedents out of which in
two cases, he has been acquitted and one is of the Excise Act is still
pending therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the
material available on record, the applicant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in
the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court and the quantity of contraband article which was recovered
from the possession of the co-accused i.e. total 20.100 Kgs of
Ganja, which is above commercial quantity and further considering
the fact that the co-accused namely Vinod Kumar whose bail was
rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8470/2025 vide order dated
11.11.2025, being aggrieved by the said rejection, co-accused
Vinod Kumar preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, after
considering the matter, was granted bail to co-accused Vinod
Kumar in SLP (Criminal) No. 19291/2025, vide order dated
01.04.2026 (copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure A-
3) and further it appears that the case of the applicant is better than
that of co-accused thus, without further commenting anything on
merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let applicant, Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana, involved in Crime
No. 429/2025, registered at Police Station- Masturi District-
Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, be
released on bail on his furnishing a 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 Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
