VIJAY EKKA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332392026 2026:CGHC:38324

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7948 of 2026
1 - Vijay Ekka Son Of Late Behanu Ekka Aged About 34 Years Resident
Of Narayanpur, Mudapara, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
2 - Hem Sagar Yadav Son Of Uderam Aged About 43 Years Resident Of
Narayanpur, Mudapara, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3 - Parmeshwar Yadav Son Of Late Maheshwar Yadav Aged About 45
Years Resident Of Farasatoli Chauki, Kotba, Thana Bagbahar, District
Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime
No. 214/2026 registered at Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar,
District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(b) and 29
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station
Chakradhar Nagar, District - Raigarh (C.G.), received a secret
information from the informant and on the said information police
conducted a raid and seized 18.100 Kgs of Ganja from the joint
possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, offence
punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against
present applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present
applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the contraband article i.e.
18.100 Kgs of Ganja was not seized from the joint possession of the
present applicants. He also submits that prosecution agency has
not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He
further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents
under the NDPS Act, the charge-sheet has already been filed
before the competent Court, and they have been in jail since
06.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long
time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail
application of the present applicants and submit that the charge-
sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court
and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for
the applicants. She further submits that from the joint possession of
the present applicants total 18.100 Kgs of Ganja was seized,
therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.

3
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
that the said contraband Ganja which was recovered form the joint
possession of the present applicants is less than commercial
quantity and also considering the fact that in the present bail
application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, they are in jail
since 06.05.2026 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed . Let
the Applicants – Vijay Ekka, Hem Sagar Yadav and
Parmeshwar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 214/2026 registered at
Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the
offence under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on
furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum
to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial

4
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are
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 them 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
Rahul Dewangan