[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Puroshottam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13271
Digitally
signed by
VAISHALI
NAFR
VAISHALI LUCKY
LUCKY NAGARIA
NAGARIA Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026.03.19
18:00:51
+0530
MCRC No. 2318 of 2026
• Puroshottam Sahu S/o Jivrakhan Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o
Sanjay Nagar Khurud, P.S. Kurud Distt - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gobra Nawapara, District -
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
19.03.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
10/2026, registered at Police Station - Gobra-Nawapara, District -
Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the
NDPS Act.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that 07.01.2026, upon receiving
secret information, the police conducted a raid at Dulna Tiraha and
apprehended the present applicant along with a co-accused,
Purushottam Sahu. It is alleged that upon a personal search of the
applicant, a plastic packet containing 5.68 grams of brown sugar was
found. Therefore, offence has been registered against the applicant
and co-accused.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It
is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is
also submitted that alleged seizure contraband is 5.68 grams, which
is only marginally higher than the small quantity (5 grams) and is
significantly less than the commercial quantity (250 grams) as
prescribed under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that there are
no any criminal antecedents of the applicant, and he is in jail since
07.01.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long
time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case and there are no any criminal antecedents of the
applicant. It is submitted that contraband article i.e. brown sugar of
5.68 grams seized from the joint possession of the applicant and co-
accused, which is only marginally higher than the small quantity (5
grams) and is significantly less than the commercial quantity (250
grams), therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties as well as considering the quantity of contraband article i.e.
5.68 grams of brown sugar seized from the joint possession of the
applicant and co-accused, which is only marginally higher than the
small quantity (5 grams) and is significantly less than the commercial
quantity (250 grams), also considering the fact that charge-sheet has
been filed, and further that the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2026
and applicant has no criminal antecedent and the conclusion of the
trial is likely to take sometime, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the applicant, Purushottam Sahu involved in Crime No.
10/2026, registered at Police Station - Gobra-Nawapara, District -
Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the
NDPS Act, be released on bail on their 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 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
Vaishali
