Mohammad Irfan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 May, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Mohammad Irfan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 May, 2025

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                            1




                                                                             2025:CGHC:22169
        Digitally
        signed by
        SOURABH
SOURABH BHILWAR
BHILWAR Date:                                                                              NAFR
        2025.05.20
        17:28:48
        +0530

                                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                               MCRC No. 3980 of 2025


                     1 Mohammad Irfan S/o Mohammad Makki Aged About 32 Years R/o Dalsingh
                     Saray P.S. Dalsing Saray, District - Samastipur Bihar
                                                                                ... Petitioner(s)
                                                         versus
                     1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ganj,
                     District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                              ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

20.05.2025

1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the

applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2025

registered at Police Station – Ganj, District Raipur, (C.G.), for the

offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station-

Ganj District -Raipur (C.G.), had received secret information from the

informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid at

Karan Hotel, station road, Room No. 102, and seized 30.39 Kgs of

Ganja from the joint possession of the applicant along with other co-

accused person. Thereafter, the Police has registered the offence

punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant

has been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged contraband

article i.e. 30.39 kgs of ganja was not seized from the joint possession

of the present applicant and other co-accused person. He also submits

that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail

since 04.02.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some time,

therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application

of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has not

been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He

further submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 30.39 Kgs of

Ganja, was recovered from the joint possession of the present

applicant and other co-accused person, which is much above the

commercial quantity and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be

released on bail.

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

case diary.

3

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the

fact that the contraband article which has been seized from the joint

possession of the present applicant other co-accused person which is

much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to

give any explanation for the same and it cannot be a case of false

implication.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mohammad Irfan,

involved in Crime No. 25/2025 registered at Police Station – Ganj,

District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is

rejected.

8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court

concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

                             -                                    Sd/-
                                                             (Ramesh Sinha)
                                                              Chief Justice




$Bhilwar