RAJ DAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010429032026 2026:CGHC:46744
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 10516 of 2026
Raj Das S/o Late Virendra Das. Aged About 22 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar,
Anurat Residency, Civil Lines, Police Station, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Polie Station Ganj,
District Raipur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate along with Mr.
Aditya Bhagwani, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, Panel lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
04.11.2026
1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he
has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at
Police Station –Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable
under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act. First bail application of the present
applicant was withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after

2
examination of seizure witnesses vide order dated 08.09.2026 in MCRC
No. 8285/2026.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that prosecution has lodged a report
against the applicant with the allegation that the Police apprehended the
applicant along with two other co-accused persons, namely, Bhavesh
Khatwani and Praveen Baghel from Expressway Road near Memon
Saray Bhawan, Raipur with a sweater in the plastic bag from Bhavesh
Khatwani, which contained about 3000 tablets of Nitrazepam, weighing
a total of 1.68 kgs. Based upon which crime was registered and
applicant was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He
further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime
after withdrawal of the first bail application two independent witnesses
have been examined who were declared hostile and have not supported
the case of prosecution. He submits that alleged tablets have been
seized from the car and applicant is only the occupant not the owner of
the car. The said car is owned by Bhavesh Khatwani. Also there is no
criminal antecedent registered against the present applicant. Hence he
may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant. However, on putting specific
query she submits that the alleged tablets have been seized from the
car whose owner is Bhavesh Khatwani and not from the exclusive
possession of applicant. She also do not dispute the fact that there is no
criminal antecedent registered against the applicant.

3
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
enclosed along with the bail application.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as
also the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties
and further considering that the alleged tablets have been seized from
the car whose owner is not the applicant, without commenting anything
on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed . It is directed that the applicant
shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum
of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Court on the conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court
on each date fixed, either personally or through him
counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(c) 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.

4
(d) 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Alfiza
JUDGE