[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12186
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2400 of 2026
Shiv Baghel S/o Nakul Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Kota Stadium, Behind
Om Shri School, Shukla Ji House On Rent, Thana - Sarshwasti Nagar District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Ganj,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.03.13
18:29:00
+0530 Order on Board
13.03.2026
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. 160/2025 registered
at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Police Station Ganj received
information through a Rojnamcha (RAT) entry on 19.06.2025 regarding
the trafficking of contraband material. After observing the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act, the police conducted a raid at the place of
occurrence near Telghani Naka Chowk, Maldhakka Road, Raipur and
allegedly recovered 6.40 kg of contraband material (Ganja) from the
present applicant. From co-accused Shyam Tandi, 9.50 kg of Ganja was
recovered, from Nisha Bagga, 4.20 kg of Ganja was recovered and from
Isha Bagga, 4 kg of Ganja was recovered. Thus, from the alleged joint
possession of the accused persons, a total of 23.110 kg of Ganja was
recovered. Thereafter, an offence in Crime No. 160/2025 came to be
registered against the accused persons under Section 20(c) of the NDPS
Act (as mentioned in the impugned order). However, it is pertinent to note
that while Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act has been mentioned in the
impugned order, the FIR mentions Section 20(b), and the charge-sheet
has been filed under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that
prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of
the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority.
She also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents.
She further submits that the co-accused persons, namely, Shyam Tandi,
Nisha Bagga and Isha Bagga have already been granted regular bail by
this Court in MCRC No. 1036 of 2026 and MCRC No.1722 of 2026, vide
order dated 23.02.2026, hence the applicant is also entitled to be
released on bail on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose 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 as the
co-accused persons, Shyam Tandi, Nisha Bagga and Isha Bagga have
already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1036 of
2026 and MCRC No.1722 of 2026, vide order dated 23.02.2026,
moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the
competent Court in the present case, therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the present applicant is also entitled to be grant
regular bail on the ground of parity in this Case.
7. Let the Applicant - Shiv Baghel, involved in Crime No. 160/2025
registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on his 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.
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
Sd/-
Abhishek
