Gomado Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010275322026

2026:CGHC:31729

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 6584 of 2026

¶7

Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.25 11:34:06 +0530

¶8

Gomado Yadav S/o Late Shobharam Yadav, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Sihardhar, Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (wrongly mentioned as Gomado in cause title)

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District- Raigarh (C.G.) and S.H.O. of The Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶13

24.07.2026

¶14

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 115/2026, registered at Police Station - Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

¶15

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.04.2026, acting on secret information received, the police of Police Station Lailunga apprehended

¶16

2

¶17

the present applicant along with two other accused persons near the main road at Sihardhar and seized a total of 9.190 kilograms of ganja from their possession. Out of the total quantity seized, 2.700 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the present applicant, 3.270 kilograms from co-accused Dileshwar Yadav, and 3.200 kilograms from co-accused Pintu Yadav. Thereafter, the offence was registered against the accused persons, and upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that only 2.700 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which falls within the intermediate quantity. The investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet has already been filed. He further submits that there is no prescribed minimum sentence for the alleged offences under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act in respect of intermediate quantity of ganja. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.04.2026. The final adjudication of the case is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

¶19

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

¶20

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶21

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the quantity of ganja allegedly seized from the applicant, the fact that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.04.2026, and that he has no criminal antecedents, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed . Let the applicant -

¶23

3

¶24

Gomado Yadav involved in Crime No. 115/2026, registered at Police Station - Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety with the following conditions:-

¶25

(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.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial 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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

4

¶30

8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶31

Sd/- Sd/-

¶32

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶33

Preeti

Gomado Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gomado Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Hiyal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A B C Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirmala Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saroj Singh Vs Additional Divisional Railway Manager and Estate Officer

Sagar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh