Panna Lal Verma vs State of Chhattsgarh

1

CGHC010335192026 2026:CGHC:38577
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8014 of 2026
Panna Lal Verma S/o S/o Bisram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o-
Village Parteva, Post Devri, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim, District
Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
AKHILESH
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattsgarh Through Police Station Basna, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate
appeared through video conferencing.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
01/08/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for
grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station

2
Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during vehicle checking
2.
on the date of the incident, the police noticed a Maruti Ciaz
bearing registration No. CG-04-PV-0112 attempting to turn and,
upon surrounding the vehicle, found co-accused Lakeshwar
Yadav driving the same. On questioning, he allegedly disclosed
that Ganja was being transported in the vehicle, pursuant to which
a search was conducted and 30 KGs of Ganja was allegedly
recovered from the trunk of the car. It is further alleged that, in his
memorandum statement recorded after arrest, co-accused
Lakeshwar Yadav stated that he and the present applicant were
transporting the contraband at the instance of co-accused
Praveen Malviya, the owner of the vehicle, and that the applicant
had alighted near the border for reconnaissance, while Lakeshwar
Yadav followed him in the vehicle. He also allegedly disclosed that
the contraband had been purchased from co-accused Mama alias
Barda Bagarti. Hence, the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
3.
been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since
16.02.2026. He further submits that no contraband was seized
from the applicant, nor was he found accompanying co-accused
Lakeshwar Yadav at the time of the alleged recovery. The

3
applicant has merely been implicated on the basis of the
memorandum statement of the co-accused. It is further submitted
that the allegation that the car was following the applicant, who
was allegedly walking for several kilometres, appears highly
improbable. Moreover, the memorandum statement does not
mention the time of the alleged occurrence, rendering its contents
doubtful. He also submits that as per the FIR (Annexure A-2), the
vehicle allegedly arrived at 14:20 hours on 06.01.2026, whereas
the recovery memo indicates that the alleged contraband had
already been recovered prior to the arrival of the vehicle. This
apparent discrepancy in the prosecution documents casts serious
doubt on the genuineness of the alleged recovery and the
prosecution story, the conclusion of the trial may take quite long
time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular
bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes
the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further
submits that the present applicant in collusion with co-accused,
Lakeshwar Yadav, was allegedly transporting 30 KGs of Ganja,
which is above the commercial quantity prescribed under the
NDPS Act, in a Maruti Ciaz at the instance of co-accused Praveen
Malviya, and that he had alighted from the vehicle near the border
for reconnaissance before the alleged recovery. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

4
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
5.
perused the case diary.
6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that 30 KGs of Ganja,
which is above the commercial quantity prescribed under the
NDPS Act, was recovered from the trunk of the Maruti Ciaz
bearing registration No. CG-04-PV-0112, which was being driven
by co-accused Lakeshwar Yadav, and in his memorandum
statement, he has specifically implicated the present applicant,
Panna Lal Verma by stating that both of them were transporting
the contraband at the instance of co-accused, Praveen Malviya,
owner of the said vehicle, and that the applicant had alighted from
the vehicle near the border for reconnaissance. Though no
contraband has been seized directly from the possession of the
applicant and he was not apprehended along with the vehicle at
the time of recovery, the allegation against him cannot, at this
stage, be completely brushed aside, particularly in view of the
specific role attributed to him in the memorandum statement and
the substantial quantity of contraband allegedly recovered.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the quantity of
contraband allegedly recovered, the specific allegation against the
applicant and the material collected during investigation, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the
applicant.

5
Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Panna Lal
7.
Verma, involved in Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station
Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, is rejected.
Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to
8.
proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/--
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Akhil