Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/9271/2026 of SUNIL BAGHEL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 14 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9271 of 2026 1 - Sunil Baghel S/o Dinbandhu Baghel, Aged About 26 Years R/o Chandi Nagar Near Gadiyahi Mandir P.S. - Khamhardih District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sachin Mahanand S/o Gajendra Mahanand Aged About 21 Years R/o
CGHC010387032026
2026:CGHC:44721
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9271 of 2026
1 - Sunil Baghel S/o Dinbandhu Baghel, Aged About 26 Years R/o Chandi Nagar Near Gadiyahi Mandir P.S. - Khamhardih District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Sachin Mahanand S/o Gajendra Mahanand Aged About 21 Years R/o Chandi Nagar Near Gadiyahi Mandir P.S. Khamardih District - Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Challan)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Khamardih District-Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
MCRC No. 9578 of 2026
1 - Sanjay Nag S/o Gangadhar Nag, Aged About 50 Years R/o -Kshetrajpur, Taalbhatapara, District Sambalpur, Odisha.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. -Khamardih District - Raipur (C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)
NIRMALA
RAO
For Applicant/s
: Shri Ashish Gangwani and Shri Akash Deep Sharma, Advocates.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1) These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No.247/2026 registered at Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 21(B) & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur, received secret information from an informant and, acting on the said information, conducted a raid and seized 459 capsules of Nitrazepam from the possession of the applicants, namely, Sunil Baghel and Sachin Mahanand in MCRC No.9271 of 2026. The total weight of the seized contraband was 3,855.6 mg, and accordingly, an FIR was registered. Applicant - Sanjay Nag in MCRC No.9578 of 2026 was taken into custody on the basis of the memorandum statements of the above-named applicants. Thereafter, the aforesaid offences were registered against the applicants in both cases.
3) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that an intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from the applicants, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, and they have been in jail since 21.7.2026 and 24.7.2026, respectively. He would further submit that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. He would, therefore, pray for grant of regular bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicants would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She also concurs with the submission that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. She further submits that 459 capsules of Nitrazepam, weighing a total of 3,855.6 mg, were seized from the possession of the applicants. She would, therefore, submit that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that 459 capsules of Nitrazepam, weighing a total of 3,855.6 mg, were recovered from the joint possession of the applicants, which is less than the commercial quantity, and that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have been in jail since 21.7.2026 and 24.7.2026, respectively, and that the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present cases.
7) Accordingly, the bail applications filed by applicants in both the cases are allowed and 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 to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-
(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, and
(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
(iv) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicants on the application for grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi