[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sheikh Babuuddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12752
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1606 of 2026
Sheikh Babuuddin S/o Sheikh Ajimuddin Aged About 50 Years R/o Raja
Talab Nurani Chowk, P.S. Civil Line Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed by
versus
VAIBHAV SINGH
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Date: 2026.03.18
11:16:56 +0530
Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
17.03.2026
1.
This is the First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has
been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1203/2025, registered at
Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. The prosecution's story in brief is that, the concerned police station
Khamtarai, Raipur, received secret information through the informant
that at the time of incident, unknown persons were illegal kept
contraband ganja in their possession to sale and police has seized 07
kg. contraband ganja from the possession of the applicant at open
place and as a result thereof, police has registered offence
publishable under section 20 (B) (II) (B) of the N.D.P.S. against the
other accused person and only on the basis of memorandum
statement, the applicant has been arrested on 23.11.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is an innocent
person who has been falsely implicated in the present case and has
no nexus with the incident alleged by the prosecution. There is no
proof of exclusive possession as the seizure memo has not been duly
supported by seizure witnesses, and the quantity of the alleged
contraband ganja is small and not of commercial quantity. The
prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the
NDPS Act, and the concerned police authorities did not conduct a
proper investigation prior to lodging the FIR. No contraband has been
recovered from the possession of the applicant, and his implication is
based merely on suspicion without any substantive material. The
allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated, and there is
no reliable or cogent evidence demonstrating compliance with the
provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The applicant has
neither committed the alleged offence nor been involved in any such
activity and has been wrongly arrested without proper inquiry. The
charge-sheet has already been filed, no custodial interrogation is
required, and the applicant has been in custody since 23.11.2025,
therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed
against the applicant and that the applicant has one criminal
antecedents; 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 allegations levelled against the applicant,
and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been
submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained
in jail since 23.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present
applicant.
7. Let applicant, Sheikh Babuuddin, involved in Crime No. 1203/2025,
registered at Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the N.D.P.S.
Act, 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaibhav
