ADITYA KUCHBADIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010294362026 2026:CGHC:38422
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date:
2026.09.01
11:50:36
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
MCRC No. 6938 of 2026
Aditya Kuchbadiya S/o Atul Kuchbadiya Aged About 21 Years R/o Sajli,
P.S. Sanodha, District Sagar, M.P. (Details As Per Rejection Order)
...Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.), P.S. -
City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, C.G. ...Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
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
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail
to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime
No. 257/2026 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District
Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) & 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and
Section 111 of the BNS.

2
2. As per the prosecution case, on 18.04.2026, on the basis of
secret information, the police officials intercepted the present
applicant along with two co-accused persons near the Imli Tree
situated at Jawali Nala Road, Bilaspur, after they allegedly
alighted from an auto-rickshaw. Upon search, contraband, namely
“ganja”, was allegedly recovered from their possession. It is
alleged that 06 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the
backpack carried by the present applicant, whereas a total
quantity of 14 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the
possession of the two co-accused persons. On the basis of the
said recovery and report, Crime No. 257/2026 was registered at
Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the
offences alleged against the applicant and the co-accused
persons. The present applicant was arrested on 18.04.2026 and
has since remained in judicial custody.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and that he was
merely travelling in an auto-rickshaw and was apprehended by the
police on mere suspicion immediately after alighting from the
vehicle, whereas no contraband was actually recovered from his
possession. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery and
the statements recorded by the police are seriously disputed and
the prosecution has failed to establish compliance with the
mandatory provisions and safeguards prescribed under the NDPS
Act. It is also contended that the alleged seizure proceedings

3
suffer from serious procedural irregularities, as the seizure
panchanama does not mention any certified measurement or
weighing certificate, contains discrepancies regarding the timing
and seizure proceedings, and there is no apparent difference in
the quantity of the seized contraband despite a portion thereof
allegedly having been taken as samples for FSL examination.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has
failed to properly appreciate the aforesaid infirmities and has
rejected the bail application by stretching the prosecution case
beyond what is legally permissible, whereas the prosecution has
failed to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences against the applicant. It is lastly submitted that
the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.04.2026, the
trial is likely to take considerable time, and there is no justification
for keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period; the applicant
is a permanent resident of District Sagar (M.P.), has deep roots in
society, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with
prosecution witnesses, and he is ready to furnish adequate bail
and abide by all the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits
that 06 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the backpack of
the present applicant, while 14 kilograms was recovered from the
co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant was
apprehended on the basis of secret information and the alleged
recovery is supported by the seizure proceedings and other

4
material collected during investigation. It is also submitted that the
applicant has one previous criminal antecedent involving an
offence of a similar nature. Considering the nature and gravity of
the offence, the quantity of contraband recovered, and the
previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, he is not entitled to
bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the
nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on
record, it is evident that contraband ganja weighing 21 kilograms
has been seized from the joint possession of the applicant and the
co-accused persons, which prima facie falls within the category of
commercial quantity under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The
applicant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation
regarding his possession of the said contraband. The recovery of
such a substantial quantity of ganja prima facie indicates his
involvement in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances,
constituting a serious offence under the NDPS Act. It is also
brought on record that the applicant has one previous criminal
antecedent under the NDPS Act, which further weighs against
grant of bail. Considering the gravity of the offence, the statutory
rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the previous
criminal antecedent of the applicant, and the material available on

5
record, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to extend the
benefit of bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Aditya
Kuchbadiya, involved in Crime No. 257/2026 registered at Police
Station – City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, for the offence punishable
under Section 20(B) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the BNS, is rejected.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav