Allowed

Subham Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7823/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to an applicant arrested for possession of 15.654 kg of Ganja under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act. The court noted the quantity was below commercial threshold, charge-sheet was filed, the applicant had been in custody since June 11, 2026, and trial would take time. Despite a prior criminal case from 2021, the court allowed bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Subham Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010325392026 2026:CGHC:41020

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7823 of 2026

¶6

Subham Prajapati S/o Hiralal Prajapati Aged About 28 Years R/o Anand Nagar Kopata, Ward No. 62, Transport Nagar Bhopal, P.S. Bilkhidiya, Distt. Bhopal, M.P.

¶7

... Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

KUNAL DEWANGAN

¶11

Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN

¶12

... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

21/09/2026

¶16

1. The applicant has preferred this First 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. 219/2026, registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶17

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the police of Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar (C.G.), received secret information from

¶18

¶19

the informant and acting upon confidential information, conducted a search and allegedly recovered contraband Ganja weighing 15.654 kilograms from the possession of the applicant. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the applicant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submits that the quantity of contraband article recovered from the possession of the applicant, i.e. 15.654 kilograms of Ganja, is below the commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the applicant. He further contends that the chargesheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 11.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

¶21

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and one criminal case under the IPC of the year 2021 is registered against the applicant at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that the quantity of contraband article which has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is below the commercial quantity but the manner in which the crime has been committed by the

¶22

¶23

applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶24

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

¶25

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the quantity of contraband Ganja allegedly recovered from his possession, which is below the commercial quantity and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 11.06.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time and also considering the criminal antecedent of the applicant as disclosed by the learned State counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be released on regular bail.

¶26

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . 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:-

¶27

(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; (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

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.

¶33

S/Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Kunal

Subham Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham Prajapati 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