MAHADEV BAGHEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332822026 2026:CGHC:38592

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8043 of 2026
Mahadev Baghel Aged About 36 Years, Village Bhataguda Kotwarpara,
Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police
Station Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
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.
69/2026 registered at Police Station – Nagarnar, District - Bastar
(C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station -
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G.), received a secret information from
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid

2
and seized contraband article i.e. total 4.309 kgs of Ganja
amounting of Rs. 2,01,630/- from the possession of the present
applicant. Thereafter, offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(b)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has
been registered against present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
further submits that the said contraband article was not seized from
the possession of the present applicant. He also submits that
prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section
42 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. He also submits that the
charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and
he is in jail since 11.05.2026 and 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, 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
and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for
the applicant. He further submits that from the possession of the
present applicant total 4.309 kgs of Ganja amounting of Rs.
2,01,630/- was seized. He also submits that the applicant has one
previous criminal antecedent under the Juva Act. Therefore, the
present applicant is 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
possession of the present applicant 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 applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS
Act, he has one case under the Juva Act which is of the year 2007,
and he is in jail since 11.05.2026 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 applicant is allowed . Let the
Applicant – Mahadev Baghel, involved in Crime No. 69/2026
registered at Police Station – Nagarnar, District - Bastar (C.G.) for
the offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) 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

4
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 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