NARESH SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010319292026 2026:CGHC:38806

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7992 of 2026
Naresh Soni S/o Late Ram Chalitar Soni Aged About 56 Years R/o Sonu
Daily Needs, Opposite Kedarpur Municipal Corporation Water Tank,
Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police of Police
Station - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
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.
380/2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District – Surguja
(C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), received a secret information

2
from the informant and on the said information police conducted a
raid and seized contraband article i.e. total 3.360 kgs of Ganja from
the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused
person. Thereafter, offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been
registered against present applicant and co-accused person.
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 contraband article i.e. 3.360 kgs of Ganja
was not seized from the joint possession of the present applicant
and co-accused person. 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
06.06.2026 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. She further submits that from the joint possession of
the present applicant along with co-accused person total 3.360 kgs
of Ganja was seized. 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 joint
possession of the present applicant and co-accused person 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, and he is in jail since 06.06.2026 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 – Naresh Soni, involved in Crime No. 380/2026
registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for
the offence under Section 20(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