DEVENDRA VISHWAKARMA @ MONTU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010386972026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9767 of 2026
Devendra Vishwakarma @ Montu S/o Rajesh Vishwakarma, Aged About
31 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Ward No. 11, P.S. Mohan Nagar District Durg
C.G.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Mohan Nagar, District Durg C.G.
.. Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
04/11/2026
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant, under
1.
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for
grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 222/2025, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar,
District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections
21(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2
The earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a
2.
coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 756 of 2026 vide order
dated 11.02.2026 on the ground of his criminal antecedents under
the NDPS Act. Hence, the present second bail application.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.05.2025, acting upon the
secret information received from the informant and during
investigation, a motorcycle allegedly found in the joint possession of
the accused persons was searched and from its dickey, 50 small
sky-coloured sachets containing a total quantity of 26 grams of
Diacetylmorphine (Brown Sugar) were seized. The accused persons
failed to produce any valid documents or authorization for
possession of the contraband substance. Further investigation
revealed that the mobile numbers of the applicant and other co-
accused persons were in contact with each other in connection with
the purchase and sale of narcotic substances. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the
competent Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
4.
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She
would further submit that no sufficient material or evidence is
available on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence,
as no contraband substance was recovered from his personal and
conscious possession and he has been implicated merely on the
basis of the alleged involvement of the other accused persons.
Learned counsel would further submit that against the order passed

3
by a coordinate Bench of this Court rejecting his earlier bail
application, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by
filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 7757 of 2026, which
was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
04.05.2026 on the ground of his criminal antecedents. She would
further submit that, so far as the criminal antecedents of the
applicant are concerned, he has three criminal cases registered
against him under the NDPS Act, out of which he has been acquitted
in two cases and convicted in one case, as disclosed in paragraph 4
of the present bail application. It is further submitted that the
applicant is in jail since 25.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take some time. On these grounds, learned counsel prays
for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer
5.
for grant of bail and submit that the earlier first bail application of the
applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court, which
order was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by
filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 7757 of 2026, but the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same vide order dated
04.05.2026, taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the
applicant under the NDPS Act. He would further submit that there is
no change in the circumstances since rejection of the earlier bail
application and the applicant has criminal antecedents under the
NDPS Act. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on
bail.

4
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
6.
diary.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of offence alleged against the applicant and particularly
the fact that the earlier first bail application of the applicant was
rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 756 of
2026 vide order dated 11.02.2026 on the ground of his criminal
antecedents under the NDPS Act, against the said order, the
applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 7757 of
2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed
vide order dated 04.05.2026, taking into consideration the criminal
antecedents of the applicant under the NDPS Act and further
considering that no substantial change in circumstances has been
brought to the notice of this Court warranting reconsideration of the
prayer for grant of bail, thus I am not inclined to grant bail to the
applicant.
Accordingly, the present second bail application is hereby
8.
dismissed .
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal