[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10270
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1909 of 2026
Rahul Thakur S/o Yogendra Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o
Khokhopara, Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Police Station Kotwali, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant
of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime
No.348/2025, registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(A) of the NDPS
Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
RAHUL 2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.12.2025, the police of Police
DEWANGAN
Digitally Station- Kotwali received secret information that the applicant was
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN sitting in a Scorpio vehicle without a number plate for the purpose of
selling contraband substances, namely heroin and MD. Upon
receipt of the said information, the police summoned independent
witnesses and prepared the necessary panchnama. The
information was also communicated to the Superintendent of
Police, Raipur, and thereafter a raid was conducted. The applicant
was intercepted near Garden Road, Budha Talab. A notice under
Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him, and his personal
search was conducted, leading to the alleged recovery of
contraband substances. A weighment panchnama was prepared on
the spot. It is further alleged that the applicant was found in
possession of 1.18 grams of heroin, 1.34 grams of brown sugar,
cash amounting to Rs. 16,000/-, along with one pistol and four live
cartridges. The seized articles were duly sealed in accordance with
law. A Dehati Nalishi was recorded, and after completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet/challan has been filed against the
applicant. Hence this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
contended that the allegations as reflected in the FIR are false,
baseless and politically motivated, as the applicant is an active
member of the Congress Party and the present FIR has been
lodged only to settle political scores and out of personal vendetta.
From a bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the same has
been registered with malafide intention to harass the applicant and
to wreak personal grudge. It is further submitted that a false and
fabricated story has been created, which is evident from the
newspaper report dated 17.12.2025, wherein it has been reported
that the applicant was taken into police custody at midnight
between 15.12.2025 and 16.12.2025 (around 12:30 AM). If the
applicant was already in custody at that time, the subsequent
registration of FIR at 11:36 PM on 16.12.2025 becomes highly
doubtful. The said newspaper report also reflects that the incident
allegedly took place at Baijnathpara and not at Garden Road,
Budha Talab, as mentioned in the FIR, and the image published
therein shows the pistol, four bullets and cash of Rs.16,000/-
already seized, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the
alleged recovery at 07:30 PM on 16.12.2025. The image of the
Scorpio vehicle published in the newspaper matches the
description in the FIR, further indicating that the story has been
manipulated subsequently. It is thus submitted that the FIR is an
afterthought and the entire seizure and other proceedings reflected
in the charge-sheet are vitiated, particularly when the applicant was
already in custody.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contend that the charge-
sheet cites as many as 15 witnesses, the trial is likely to take
considerable time and even charges have not yet been framed. The
alleged psychotropic substances recovered from the applicant fall
within small quantity as per the schedule of the NDPS Act.
Moreover, though the alleged incident is stated to have occurred at
a busy and crowded place, no independent witnesses from the
locality have been examined, which casts serious doubt on the
prosecution story. Further, so far as criminal antecedents of the
applicant is concerned, the same has been explained in para 4A of
the bail application which reflects that applicant has only one case
pending against him under Section 3, 4 of the C.G. Gambling
Prohibition Act. He lastly submits that the applicant is in judicial
custody since 16.12.2025 and has completed more than two
months in jail and further, conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the
bail application of the applicant and also the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact
that the psychotropic substance seized from the applicant is less
than commercial quantity.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly that the alleged contraband seized from the applicant is
below commercial quantity and falls within small/intermediate
quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are not attracted. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the
applicant is in judicial custody since 16.12.2025. Further, so far as
the criminal antecedent is concerned, the same has been explained
and the applicant is stated to have only one case of minor nature
pending against him, this Court is inclined to grant bail. Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail
application is accordingly allowed.
8. Let applicant, Rahul Thakur, involved in Crime No.348/2025,
registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Section 21(A) of the NDPS Act and
Section 25 of the Arms 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 them 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
Rahul Dewangan
