SANTOSH PAL @ BILLA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010392712026 2026:CGHC:45640
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9537 of 2026
 Santosh Pal @ Billa S/o Lt. Shri Nandu Pal, Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Krishnpur (Dhamani), P.S. Trikunda, Dist.- Balarampur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Pratappur, District -Surajpur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate
For State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
28.10 .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. 224/2025 registered at Police
Station Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Section 21(c) of NDPS Act.
2.
Case of prosecution in brief, is that on 22.09.2025, acting on secret
information regarding three persons carrying intoxicating injections for sale,
the police of Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, conducted a raid
near Semarakhurd Tiraha and apprehended the present applicant, Santosh Pal

2
@ Billa, along with co-accused Bablu Rajwade and Anil Singh. Upon search,
40 AVIL injections of 10 ml each and 40 Rexogesic injections of 2 ml each
were allegedly seized from the possession of the present applicant. Further,
50 AVIL injections of 10 ml each and 50 Rexogesic injections of 2 ml each
were allegedly seized from the possession of co-accused Bablu Rajwade.
Thus, total 90 AVIL injections and 90 Rexogesic injections were seized from
the applicant and the co-accused. Thereafter, the police registered aforesaid
offence against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is contended that the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act has not been followed.
He further submits that seized AVIL injections do not fall within the purview
of NDPS Act and are governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. With regard
to Rexogesic injections, learned counsel submits that each injection contains
0.6 milligrams of buprenorphine, and therefore, total quantity of
buprenorphine in 40 injections comes to 0.024 grams, which is below the
notified small quantity of 1 gram under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted
that applicant is sole breadwinner of his family and he is in jail since
22.09.2025. He would contend that till now only one out of eleven
prosecution witnesses has been examined. He would pray for grant of bail to
the present applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application
and submits that 40 AVIL injections of 10 ml each, aggregating to 400 ml,
and 40 Rexogesic injections of 2 ml each, aggregating to 80 ml were
allegedly seized from possession of the applicant. It is contended that

3
applicant has incorrectly calculated the quantity of buprenorphine as the
calculation must be based on the actual composition and concentration of the
drug in the seized injections. She submits that recovered contraband article is
above commercial quantity. It is contended that present applicant has one
live criminal antecedent of similar nature registered in the year 2021,
therefore, instant application deserves to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and
gravity of the allegations, it appears that 40 AVIL injections of 10 ml each
and 40 Rexogesic injections of 2 ml each were allegedly seized from the
possession of the applicant. Even if the contention of the applicant that AVIL
injections do not fall within the purview of the NDPS Act is accepted, the
fact remains that 40 Rexogesic injections, each containing 2 ml, total 80 ml,
were allegedly seized from his possession, which is above commercial
quantity, therefore, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would attract.
Further, the applicant has one live criminal antecedent of similar nature
registered in the year 2021, which is pending consideration. The applicant's
contention with regard to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the
NDPS Act is a matter to be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the
evidence adduced during trial.
7.
In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, particularly quantity of
contraband substance allegedly seized from possession of the applicant,
applicability of rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the applicant's
criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

4
8. Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby rejected .
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant