RAJARAM PAL vs DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE RAIPUR

1

CGHC010329402026 2026:CGHC:38357
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7975 of 2026
1 - Rajaram Pal S/o Hukum Singh Pal Aged About 28 Years R/o
Chandwani Khas, P.S.- Orchha, District- Tikamgarh (M.P.)
2 - Shishupal Rajput S/o Niranjan Das Rajput Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village- Janaoli, Post- Chakarpur, District- Tikamgarh (M.P.) (As Per
Correct Details)
... Applicant(s)
versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Raipur Regional Unit Raipur
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
AKHILESH
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
(Chhattisgarh), Through The Station House Officer, Police Station DRI,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Md. Faruq Azam along with Mr. Sachin
Nidhi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
31/08/2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station

2
DRI, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27 A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.10.2025, Dhirendra
2.
Singh, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(DRI), Raipur, received secret information that a white Tata Harrier
bearing registration No. UP-14-ED-9088 was carrying
approximately 200–300 kg of ganja from Devori towards Jhansi
via Raipur-Durg, and was likely to pass through Kumhari Toll
Plaza during the early hours. Acting upon the said information in
accordance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, the
authorities intercepted the vehicle and seized 265 packets
containing 271.641 kg of ganja, allegedly from the joint
possession of the applicants/accused, Rajaram Pal and Shishupal
Rajput. Accordingly, a case was registered against them under
Sections 20(c), 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, and after
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. During
investigation, the memorandum statements of the accused were
recorded, which allegedly revealed the involvement of co-accused
Ajay Rajput and Anand Mishra in the conspiracy, procurement and
transportation of the contraband. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned trial

3
Court and only one out of ten prosecution witnesses has been
examined. The applicants contend that there has been non-
compliance with the mandatory safeguards under Sections 42 and
50 of the NDPS Act, and that there is no prima facie material to
establish their conscious possession of the contraband. Since the
investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed,
custodial interrogation of the applicants is no longer required. He
also submits that although Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes
stringent conditions for grant of bail in cases involving commercial
quantity, prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial
may justify grant of bail on constitutional grounds. The applicants
have no criminal antecedents and are not habitual offenders.
Therefore, it is prayed that they be enlarged on regular bail. The
applicants are in jail since 31.10.2025 and the mandatory
provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied
with in this case, the conclusion of the trial may take quite long
time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicants on regular
bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the bail
4.
application and submits that the allegation against the applicants
is that they were jointly transporting 271.641 kg of ganja,
contained in 265 packets, which is much above the commercial
quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, in Tata Harrier bearing
registration No. UP-14-ED-9088, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy
involving the procurement and transportation of the contraband,

4
so far as the co-accused persons are concerned, bail application
of two of the co-accused, namely, Ajay Rajput and anand Mishra
have already been rejected by this court vide orders dated
19.08.2026 and 18.06.2026 in MCRC Nos. 7053 of 2026 and
5141 of 2026, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
From perusal of the record, it transpires that 271.641 kg of ganja,
6.
contained in 265 packets, was seized from Tata Harrier bearing
registration No. UP-14-ED-9088, allegedly under the joint
possession of the applicant and co-accused, which is substantially
in excess of the notified commercial quantity of 20 kg for ganja,
hence the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are therefore
attracted. The material collected during investigation, including the
memorandum statements of the accused, prima facie indicates
the involvement of the applicant in the procurement and
transportation of the contraband pursuant to the alleged criminal
conspiracy. Moreover, bail application of two of the co-accused,
namely, Ajay Rajput and anand Mishra have already been
rejected by this court vide orders dated 19.08.2026 and
18.06.2026 in MCRC Nos. 7053 of 2026 and 5141 of 2026.
Considering the huge quantity of contraband seized, which is far
above the commercial quantity, the nature and gravity of the

5
alleged offences, the material available against the applicant and
the statutory restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the
applicants on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants - Rajaram Pal
and Shishupal Rajput, involved in Crime No. 47/2025 registered
at Police Station DRI, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27 A and 29 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.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
9.
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Akhil