Arun Kumar Suna v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Miss Monika Thakur, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20/08/2026

#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.94/2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act.

#2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.4.2026, the concerned KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE 18:53:57 +0530 2 Police received a secret information from informant that one co- accused namely, Mohd. Arif, resident of BSUP Colony, Kathadih, Raipur, had illegally stored contraband ganja inside his residential premises for the purpose of sale and distribution. Acting upon the aforesaid information, the police allegedly reduced the information into writing and thereafter proceeded to conduct a search and raid at the house of the said co-accused. It is the prosecution case that during the course of search, four packets wrapped with brown adhesive tape along with two black polythene packets containing alleged ganja were recovered from beneath a cot inside the house of the co-accused, having an aggregate weight of 4.916 kilograms, whereupon the same was seized in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the aforesaid alleged recovery, Crime No.94/2026 was registered at Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency recorded the memorandum statement of the co- accused Mohd. Arif, wherein it was allegedly stated that the present applicant had supplied the seized contraband to him approximately fifteen days prior to the date of the alleged recovery for the purpose of its sale. The prosecution further alleges that the present applicant was subsequently apprehended on 22.04.2026 and his memorandum statement was also recorded, wherein he is alleged to have admitted that he had supplied the contraband to the co-accused 3 and had allegedly visited the latter on the date of the incident for collecting the outstanding sale consideration. On the basis of the aforesaid memorandum statements and the investigation carried out thereafter, the present applicant came to be implicated in the present case and was arrested on 22.04.2026. Hence the bail application.

#3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. His implication is based upon conjectures, assumptions and inadmissible material and not upon any legally sustainable evidence establishing his conscious involvement in the alleged offence. Admittedly no contraband whatsoever has been recovered from the conscious or exclusive possession of the present applicant. The entire alleged recovery of 4.916 kilograms of ganja has been effected from the residential premises of the co- accused Mohd. Arif and not from the applicant, thereby substantially weakening the prosecution case against him at this stage. The prosecution seeks to connect the applicant with the alleged offence primarily on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused coupled with the alleged memorandum statement of the applicant himself. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a disclosure statement or memorandum recorded during investigation possesses only a limited evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence to 4 establish guilt, particularly when no consequential recovery has been effected pursuant thereto. Apart from the aforesaid memorandum statements, the prosecution has not brought on record any independent incriminating material such as electronic evidence, financial transactions, surveillance material, call detail records, independent witnesses or any other legally admissible evidence demonstrating that the applicant had either conscious possession of the alleged contraband or had participated in its transportation, storage or sale. The alleged recovery in the present case is 4.916 kilograms of ganja, which is admittedly below the notified commercial quantity of 20 kilograms prescribed under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The applicant has one criminal antecedent under Section 420 of the IPC which is pending. The applicant is in jail since 22.4.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

#4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under Section 420 of the IPC which is pending, and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

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

#6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, the applicant has only one criminal antecedent under Section 420 of the IPC which is pending, which is mentioned in the bail application, the applicant is in jail since

22.4.2026. and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.

#7. Let the Applicant – Arun Kumar Suna, involved in Crime No.94/2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (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 with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 6 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. (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 applicants are 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 against them in accordance with law.

#8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Barve Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice