VINAYAK TAMRAKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010335272026 2026:CGHC:38601

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8047 of 2026
Vinayak Tamrakar S/o Girja Shankar Tamrakar, Aged About 58 Years
R/o Temer Para, Killa Mandir, District Durg (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pulgaon, District - Durg
(C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
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.
247/2026 registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District - Durg
(C.G.) for the offence under Sections 8, 18, 27(A) and 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 06.03.2026, the police
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
received secret information regarding illegal cultivation of opium in
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
agricultural land situated at Village Jhejhri, P.H.N. No. 00008,

2
R.N.M. Jewra Sirsa, Tehsil and District Durg. Acting upon the said
information, the police party, along with revenue, Excise, NCB and
FSL/Scene of Crime officials, proceeded to the spot and allegedly
found opium plants cultivated over an area of approximately five
acres in Khasra Nos. 309 and 310. During the proceedings, co-
accused Vikas Bishnoi was allegedly found present at the spot and
was apprehended. It is further alleged that the aforesaid land
belonged to Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar and
was being used for agricultural purposes. Thereafter, memorandum
statements of co-accused Vikas Bishnoi and the present applicant
Vinayak Tamrakar were recorded, pursuant to which the
prosecution alleges recovery of certain agricultural and electrical
articles, CCTV-related equipment and documents from different
premises/places. The prosecution has further alleged that the
agricultural infrastructure, including the arrangements for water and
electricity connected with the adjoining agricultural land, was being
utilized in connection with the alleged cultivation of opium. On the
basis of the aforesaid proceedings, Crime No. 247/2026 was
registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District - Durg for offences
punishable under Sections 8, 18, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, the present bail
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no
direct or independent material connecting him with the alleged
cultivation of opium. It is submitted that the secret information dated

3
06.03.2026, which forms the genesis of the prosecution case,
specifically attributed the cultivation and looking after of the alleged
opium crop to co-accused Vikas Bishnoi, and the applicant was
neither named as the cultivator nor identified as the person
managing the alleged crop. It is further submitted that the alleged
opium cultivation was found in Khasra Nos. 309 and 310, which, as
per the contemporaneous revenue proceedings, stood in the names
of Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar, and the
applicant was not the recorded owner of the said land. He further
submits that, at the time of the alleged raid, co-accused Vikas
Bishnoi was found present at the spot and was apprehended,
whereas the applicant was neither present at the alleged place of
cultivation nor apprehended from the spot. It is also submitted that
no narcotic substance was recovered from the conscious and
exclusive possession of the applicant and that the alleged opium
crop was standing in the agricultural field, with no direct physical
link having been established between the applicant and the alleged
contraband. It is contended that the prosecution seeks to connect
the applicant mainly on the basis of the alleged availability of water,
electricity, pumps, sprinklers, CCTV equipment and other
agricultural articles, which are ordinary agricultural resources and,
in the absence of independent evidence showing conscious
knowledge and intentional participation, cannot establish cultivation
or possession of narcotic crops.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the memorandum statement of
co-accused Vikas Bishnoi does not independently establish the

4
applicant’s involvement in the alleged cultivation and that there is no
independent corroborative material showing any agreement,
meeting of minds, financial transaction, bank trail, payment or
transfer of funds so as to attract the provisions of Sections 29 and
27-A of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the alleged
seizures of agricultural/electrical articles, bank passbooks/
documents and CCTV-related equipment do not constitute
incriminating material connecting the applicant with the alleged
cultivation, particularly when no narcotic substance was recovered
from his conscious possession. He also points out the discrepancy
in the applicant’s memorandum dated 10.03.2026, which bears the
signature of the concerned police officer on 12.03.2026, for which
no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution. It is
further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since
07.03.2026, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
already been filed on 29.07.2026, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding, tampering
with evidence or influencing witnesses. He further submits that co-
accused, namely, Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi,
have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C.
Nos. 3846/2026 and 4560/2026 vide common order dated
31.07.2026, and therefore, on the ground of parity also, the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-
sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court

5
and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for
the applicant. He further submits that the allegations against the
applicant are serious in nature and relate to the illegal cultivation of
opium over an area of approximately five acres, attracting the
provisions of the NDPS Act. It is contended that the applicant
cannot seek exoneration merely on the ground that he was not
apprehended from the spot, as the prosecution has collected
material during investigation indicating his involvement in the
alleged cultivation through the agricultural arrangements, water and
electricity facilities, pumps, sprinklers, CCTV equipment and other
articles connected with the adjoining agricultural premises, as well
as the memorandum and subsequent seizure proceedings. He
further submits that the role attributed to the applicant is required to
be appreciated on the basis of the entire material collected during
investigation and not merely on the basis of his presence or
absence at the spot. He also submtis that the applicant has one
previous criminal antecedent. Learned State Counsel, however,
could not dispute the fact that co-accused, namely, Sukharam
Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi, have already been granted bail
by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 3846/2026 and 4560/2026
vide common order dated 31.07.2026, but submits that the
applicant’s case is required to be considered on the basis of the
specific material and role attributed to him and, therefore, the
benefit of parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Hence, he
prays for rejection of the bail application.

6
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of
allegations and the material available on record, and the fact that
the allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in the
alleged illegal cultivation of opium on agricultural land situated at
Khasra Nos. 309 and 310, however, the applicant was neither
found present at the alleged place of cultivation nor apprehended
from the spot, and the said land was recorded in the names of
Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar. The applicant is
sought to be connected with the alleged offence mainly on the basis
of his adjoining agricultural land and the availability of certain
agricultural facilities such as water, electricity, pumps and
sprinklers, which, by themselves, do not establish his conscious
possession or intentional participation in the alleged cultivation. No
narcotic substance has been recovered from the conscious and
exclusive possession of the applicant. Further, co-accused
Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi have already been
granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 3846/2026 and
4560/2026 vide common order dated 31.07.2026. Further
considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026, the
investigation is complete and charge-sheet/final report has already
been filed, he has only one criminal antecedent and conclusion of
the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that
the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

7
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . Let the
Applicant – Vinayak Tamrakar, involved in Crime No. 247/2026
registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) for the
offence under Sections 8, 18, 27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 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

8
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.
9. 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
Rahul Dewangan