[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Birendra @ Bira Pardhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11440
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2259 of 2026
Birendra @ Bira Pardhi S/o Late Jagdish Pardhi Aged About 25 Years R/o
Power House, Indu Technical, Tea Market, Near Usha Grocery Shop, Police
VAIBHAV
SINGH Station Chhawani, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.11
10:37:41 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Durg Kotwali, District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vinamra Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.03.2026
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.
172/2025 registered at Police Station - Durg Kotwali District - Durg
(C.G.) for the offence under Section 21(a) & 27(a) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and Section 111(2) of
the BNS.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 22.04.2025 the officers of
Police Station City Kotwali, Durg allegedly received secret information
and, acting upon the same, apprehended the present applicant along
with other co-accused persons, namely Vishal Singh and Atul Kumar,
near Shivnath River on Mahamara Road, Durg. During the search, the
police allegedly recovered and seized 14.44 grams of a substance
described as "Chitta (Heroin)" along with some cash amount from the
possession of the present applicant. The police also seized 46.05
grams and 13.85 grams of brown sugar from the possession of the
other co-accused persons respectively. Consequently, in the present
crime, a total of 76.34 grams of brown sugar is alleged to have been
seized from the joint possession of the accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and
there is no material collected by the prosecution to connect the
applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. It is further
submitted that the police of Police Station City Kotwali, Durg has not
followed the mandatory procedures prescribed under the NDPS Act
during the course of investigation. Learned counsel contends that
even if the prosecution case is accepted as it stands, the quantity of
contraband allegedly seized from the applicant is 14.44 grams of
heroin, which falls under intermediate quantity, i.e., more than small
quantity but less than commercial quantity (commercial quantity being
250 grams), and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are not attracted in the present case. It is also submitted that the
charge-sheet has already been filed and no further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required. Learned counsel further
submits that the applicant has already remained in custody for more
than 10 months and the trial is likely to take considerable time to
conclude; therefore, continued detention of the applicant would be
unjustified and would infringe his rights guaranteed under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is lastly submitted that similarly
placed co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by
this Hon'ble Court and on the ground of parity also the present
applicant deserves to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-
applicant would opposes the bail application and submit that the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent
Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
noted that the contraband article, i.e., 76.34 grams of brown sugar,
was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and
the co-accused, which is less than the commercial quantity, and that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, considering the
fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent
Court, the applicant has been in custody since 22.04.2025, and the
conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is
of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail in the present case.
7. Let the Applicant - Birendra @ Bira Pardhi involved in Crime No.
172/2025 registered at Police Station - Durg Kotwali District - Durg
(C.G.) for the offence under Section 21(a) & 27(a) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and Section 111(2) of
the BNS, be released on bail on 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 she 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 her 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 her, 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.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaibhav
