Allowed

Dheeraj Dewangan urf Jitendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7797/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applicants were arrested for possession of 3.065 kg of Ganja under Sections 20(b) and 29 NDPS Act. The High Court granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, noting the quantity was below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had no prior criminal record, had been in custody since 20.07.2026, and trial would take time. Bail was allowed on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety each and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to both applicants on execution of personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with one surety in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Dheeraj Dewangan urf Jitendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010319322026 2026:CGHC:41023

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7797 of 2026

¶6

1 - Dheeraj Dewangan Urf Jitendra S/o Ram Lal Dewangan Aged About 23 Years Champa, Thana-Champa, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Suraj Kumar Dewangan S/o Ram Lal Dewangan Aged About 25 Years Champa Thana- Champa, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

KUNAL DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh P.S. Sariya, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Shreyansh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

21/09/2026

¶16

1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 153/2026, registered at Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶17

¶18

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.07.2026, on the basis of secret information, the police intercepted a black coloured motorcycle bearing registration No. CG11BR4766, on which the applicants were travelling from Odisha towards Kanchanpur, Sariya. Upon search, a total of 3.065 kilograms of contraband, alleged to be Ganja, was recovered from the possession of the applicant who was sitting as pillion rider. Accordingly, the offence was registered against the applicants under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submits that the alleged quantity of contraband recovered is below the intermediate quantity and in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in custody since 20.07.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the contraband article which has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 3.065 kilograms of Ganja, is below the intermediate quantity and the applicants have no criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court but the manner in which the crime has been committed, the applicants are not entitled

¶21

¶22

for grant of bail.

¶23

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the material available on record.

¶24

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the quantity of contraband article alleged to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants, which is below the commercial quantity and the applicants are in custody since 20.07.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, thus without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants deserve to be released on regular bail.

¶25

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

¶26

(i) They 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

¶27

(iii) They shall appear before the trial Court on each

¶28

¶29

and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶30

8. Ofce is directed to send a certif fi ed copy of this order to the trial i

¶31

Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.

¶32

S/Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Kunal

Dheeraj Dewangan urf Jitendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Dewangan urf Jitendra 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