Facts
The applicant, a police constable, was arrested on 11.02.2026 following a raid behind Nilkantheshwar Temple, Raipur, where 1 gram of "Chitta" (Heroin) was seized from his possession along with a vehicle and mobile phones.
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 2Based on his memorandum statement, a co-accused was subsequently arrested with 6 grams of the same substance.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The applicant sought regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and the quantity seized (1 gram) was significantly below the "small quantity" threshold of 5 grams.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s position as a member of a disciplined force.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of contraband seized and his professional status.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5-6Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, noting the statutory thresholds for Heroin, where "small quantity" is defined as less than 5 grams (Sr. No. 56) and "commercial quantity" is 250 grams.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3-4Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding penalties for non-appearance and violation of bail conditions.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8Reasoning
The Court evaluated the application by balancing the gravity of the offense against the specific circumstances of the seizure and the progress of the investigation. It noted that the 1 gram of Heroin seized from the applicant is legally classified as "small quantity," which is significantly less than the 250 grams required for "commercial quantity".
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6While acknowledging the State's concern regarding the applicant’s status as a constable, the Court found that since the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet filed, and the applicant had no previous criminal history, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6The Court determined there was no evidence suggesting the applicant would tamper with witnesses or flee, provided strict conditions were imposed.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6-8Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the small quantity of contraband and the completion of the investigation outweighed the professional status of the applicant for the purpose of bail.
The Court allowed the bail application, granting the applicant release on a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must attend every hearing, and must appear for charge framing and statements under Section 351 BNSS.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7-8; p. 4, para. 8Original Court PDF
HIMANSHU BARMANvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in