[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vishal Khelwar @ Chiku vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14418
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2824 of 2026
Vishal Khelwar @ Chiku S/o Late Vinod Khelwar Aged About 23 Years R/o
Kukda Janglore Pallari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh,
Present Address Tarun Nagar, Beside Jeevan Plaza, P.S. Civil Line, Distt.
Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.27
versus
11:54:58 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Civil Line,
Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.03.2026
1.
This is the first 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.
247/2025 registered at Police Station - Civil Line District - Raipur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 21(b)(ii)(b) of the
NDPS Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.05.2025, information
was received by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of P.S. Civil Lines. At
Durga Manch, Canal Road, Khaladhar, Raipur, District Raipur, a
plastic sack containing approximately 10 kilograms of cannabis
(Ganja) was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.
The matter was registered as Crime No. 247/25 & later on Charge
Sheet was filed on 22.07.2025 after completion of investigation. After
arguments on Charge dated 19.08.2025 the applicant has been
charged under Section 21(b)(ii) (b) of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as no
search or seizure was conducted involving him. Further, the
mandatory requirement of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is essential to ensure the
sanctity of the evidence and fairness of the trial, has not been duly
followed in the present case. The applicant has been in judicial
custody since 28.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to
take considerable time, and he is the sole breadwinner of his family. It
is further submitted that none of the mandatory provisions have been
adhered to by the prosecution, and the alleged seizures are beyond
logical acceptance and appear to be contradictory, as the same were
not conducted in the manner prescribed by law. The panchnama does
not mention any certified weights or measures or related certificates,
and yet it refers to crime numbers, indicating that the alleged seizure
proceedings were carried out at the police station in a mechanical and
typed format. Moreover, the investigating officer has failed to inquire
into the source of the alleged contraband in dereliction of his duties
under Section 59 of the Act. It is also submitted that the learned court
below has erred in rejecting the bail application by stretching its
imagination beyond permissible limits, despite serious discrepancies
and irregularities in the timing, seizure, and procedural aspects of the
prosecution case. The disposal of the case is likely to take time, and it
is not desirable to keep the applicant incarcerated for an indefinite
period. The applicant is not of a nature to threaten any person and
there is no likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution witnesses if
he is released on bail by this Hon'ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits charge-sheet has already been
fined and that the applicant has seven previous criminal antecedent,
therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the applicant, and
further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant
has remained in judicial custody since 28.05.2025, and that the
charge-sheet has already been filed, and the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular
bail to the present applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Vishal Khelwar @ Chiku, involved in Crime No.
247/2025 registered at Police Station - Civil Line District - Raipur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 21(b)(ii)(b) of the
NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with
two local 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 his 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
