Allowed

Mushtaque Ahmed @ Mushtaque Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/8561/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the petitioner, a second time offender regarding narcotics charges, citing a material change in circumstances. This included the Supreme Court granting bail to a co-accused and the lack of exclusive recovery of contraband from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to specific undertakings regarding court appearances.

Mushtaque Ahmed @ Mushtaque Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Ansari… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: 2026.09.15 16:55:49 +0530

CGHC010353372026

2026:CGHC:40147

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 8561 of 2026

¶8

Mushtaque Ahmed @ Mushtaque Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Ansari S/o Nisar Ahmed Ansari Aged About 36 Years R/o Baba Kuwa Ke Pass, Plot No.35 Sangam Nagar, Uppalwadi Nagpur, Maharashtra,

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kumhari DistrictDurg (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

15.09.2026

¶18

The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under

¶19

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.

¶20

¶21

172/2025 registered at Police Station Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant's earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025 principally on the ground that a huge quantity of approximately 388 kilograms of contraband ganja had been seized from the possession of the applicant.

¶22

It is the prosecution case that on 07.09.2025, upon receipt of secret information regarding transportation of contraband, the police intercepted a container vehicle and allegedly recovered approximately 388 kilograms of cannabis (ganja) therefrom. In connection with the said recovery, the applicant was arrested along with other co-accused persons and the present crime was registered.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no contraband was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant and no recovery has been made at his instance. It is further submitted that the applicant was neither present at the spot nor was the

¶24

¶25

container vehicle, from which the alleged contraband was recovered, owned by him. It is also submitted that the implication of the applicant is primarily based upon the statement/memorandum of co-accused Umesh Yadav.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there has been a material change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court on 17.08.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 11617/2026, arising out of MCRC No. 9676/2025, whereby co-accused Md. Fayyaz @ Mohd. Fayyaz Mohd. Nizamuddin Ansari has been granted bail. It is further submitted that another co-accused, namely, Shahid Ahmed, has also subsequently been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7988/2026 vide order dated 31.08.2026, taking into consideration the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of co-accused Md. Fayyaz. It is submitted that the case of the present applicant stands on an equal or better footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused persons and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal

¶27

¶28

antecedent and has remained in custody since 07.09.2025.

¶29

Therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.

¶30

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application. However, learned State counsel is unable to dispute the subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Md. Fayyaz by the Supreme Court and co-accused Shahid Ahmed by this

¶31

Court.

¶32

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

¶33

At the outset, it is relevant to note that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court principally on the consideration that a huge quantity of approximately 388 kilograms of contraband ganja had been seized from the possession of the applicant. The present application is the second bail application and is being considered in view of the subsequent developments and change in circumstances which have taken place after rejection of the earlier bail application.

¶34

Having regard to the material available on record, it appears that the alleged contraband was recovered from the container

¶35

¶36

vehicle and there is no specific recovery of contraband shown to have been made from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present applicant. There is also no recovery shown to have been made at the instance of the applicant.

¶37

Another circumstance which deserves significant

¶38

consideration is that co-accused Md. Fayyaz, who is involved in the same crime, has subsequently been granted bail by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 11617/2026, arising out of MCRC No. 9676/2025, vide order dated 17.08.2026. It is further borne out that another co-accused, namely, Shahid Ahmed, has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7988/2026 vide order dated 31.08.2026, upon taking into consideration the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of co-accused Md. Fayyaz. Learned State counsel is unable to dispute these subsequent developments.

¶39

10.Considering the subsequent developments, namely, the grant of bail to co-accused Md. Fayyaz by the Supreme Court and thereafter to co-accused Shahid Ahmed by this Court, the nature of allegations against the present applicant, absence of recovery of contraband from his conscious and exclusive

¶40

¶41

possession, absence of recovery at his instance, the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, the period of custody already undergone, and particularly the subsequent orders granting bail to the co-accused persons in the same crime, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶42

11.It is directed that the applicant Mushtaque Ahmed S/o Nisar Ahmed Ansari, who is in custody in connection with Crime No. 172/2025 registered at Police Station Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, shall be be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶43

(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

¶44

¶45

with law.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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

¶49

¶50

against him in accordance with law.

¶51