Allowed

Praveen Khelvadi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026MCRC/7697/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the second bail application of Praveen Khelvadi, arrested in connection with the possession of 9 kg of ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court held that since the seized quantity was less than the commercial limit and the accused had no criminal antecedents, bail was warranted despite the pendency of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail via personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to standard conditions.

Praveen Khelvadi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010310502026

2026:CGHC:40540

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 7697 of 2026

¶7

1 - Praveen Khelvadi S/o Shri Maniram Khelvadi Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.12, Sonare Mohalla In Front Of Mata Mandir Chandangaon Chhindwara, District- Chhindwara (M.P.)

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Komakhan District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶11

	---Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Mr. Sourabh Sahu, PL

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

17.09.2026

¶15

1) The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 41/2026, registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The first bail application bearing MCRC No. 5770 of 2026 was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2026.

¶16

2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.04.2026, the Police of Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), acting on

¶17

¶18

secret information, intercepted a Maruti Dzire car bearing registration No. MP-28-ZJ-8011, carrying five persons. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle was searched, during which 09 kg of Ganja was allegedly recovered from the dickey (boot) of the car. The prosecution alleges that the contraband was in the joint conscious possession of Sonam Kakodiya and the co-accused persons. Consequently, all the accused were arrested and Crime No. 41/2026 was registered for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the present application.

¶19

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no contraband article was seized from the conscious possession of the applicant. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused, less than intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the joint possession of the accused persons 09 kg contraband (Ganja) has been seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 04.04.2026 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶20

¶21

4) On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse said submission that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and from the joint possession of the accused persons, contraband article i.e. 09 kg of Ganja has been seized, which is less than intermediate quantity however, looking to the seriousness of the case, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶22

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

¶23

6) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and further considering that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused i.e., 09 kg of Ganja, which is less than commercial quantity, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶24

It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶25

¶26

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;

¶27

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

¶28

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶29

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its

¶30

own merits.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶33

Rekha

Praveen Khelvadi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Khelvadi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases