Rahul Dhruw vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 471/2025, registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The prosecution’s case in brief is that on 28.08.2025, based on secret information received that the applicant and co-accused Suman Dhruw had kept Ganja for sale near Circus Ground. Based upon such, the police proceeded to the spot. During the search, they seized 1.106 kg of Ganja from the possession of Suman Dhruw and ₹500/- cash from the possession of the present applicant. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 20B of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no seizure has been made from the present applicant, as the contraband was recovered from his wife, who is the co-accused, namely Suman Dhruw and she has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Only ₹500/- in cash was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. It is also submitted that an intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance Ganja was seized from the possession of the co-accused, and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted, as the commercial quantity of Ganja prescribed under the Schedule is more than 20 kg, whereas only 1.106 kg of Ganja was seized from the possession of the co-accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has few criminal antecedents, which have been detailed in the bail application at paragraph No. 4(A), and he has been in jail since 28.08.2025. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, it is therefore prayed that regular bail be granted to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, of which two cases are under the NDPS Act, registered in the years 2021 and 2024 and one case is under the Excise Act, and another case is under the IPC, also of the years 2021 and 2024, respectively. Out of the two NDPS Act cases, one is still pending, and in the other, the applicant has been convicted and fined. Although no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant in the present case, only ₹500/- was recovered from him. However, he is a habitual offender and is not entitled to the grant of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, of which two cases are under the NDPS Act, registered in the years 2021 and 2024 and one case is under the Excise Act and another case is under the IPC, also of the years 2021 and 2024, respectively and out of the two NDPS Act cases, one is still pending and in the other, the applicant has been convicted and fined. Although no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant in the present case, only ₹500/- was recovered from him. However, he is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Rahul Dhruw, involved in Crime No. 471/2025, registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is rejected.

Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.