1 2025:CGHC:14099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2304 of 2025 Shadika Begum W/o Riyajuddin Aged About 42 Years R/o Durga Chowk, Bada Ashok Nagar, Police Station- Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ram Krishna Dixit, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.23/2025, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 26.01.2025, applicant Shadika Begum was resided in her house and on the same day they KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 served the lunch box in somebody person, one of the Kashmira Singh is also come and getting the lunch box and one small carry bag stand to the applicant’s room and they received lunch, after sometime more than 5 minutes, the Gudhiyari Police has come in the incident place and seized the bag, which bag is Kashmira Singh bag, but the Shadika Begum applicant is unknown for whatever that material has been seized, after seizing of carry bag which is the material is heroin of 31.12 gram and police lodged the FIR and both person arrested. The applicant was arrested on 26.01.2025, applicant was unknown for which material has seized by Gudhiyari police, after sometime police arrested to the applicant with co- accused Kashmira Singh and getting the remand of applicant in front of Special Judge, NDPS, Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant and even in the circumstantial evidence, no incriminating circumstances is available against the present applicant regarding her involvement in the crime. The FIR was lodged against the applicant because her falsely registered with co- accused Kashmira Singh. The such type of crime, applicant not involve to selling of heroin. He further submits that the applicant is innocent of above case, the Rakhi Bhai Kanhai Jamraj has come to applicant's home and they manage to his mother. The applicant's mother is sick and bed rest on home, nobody other person has to manage home, only applicant is taking care of her mother. The police 3 seized the such heroin of 31.12 gram i.e. the one of table of small quantity and commercial quantity differentiated at column No. 56 of such act of NDPS, the below quantity is 250 gram heroin and commercial quantity is above 1 KG of contraband. The above material seized not in commercial quantity. He further submits that there is one criminal antecedent of the present applicant with same article has been seized, the applicant being a lady aged about 42 years and is languishing in jail since 26.01.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, he prays to enlarge the present applicant on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and further the quantity of contraband article which has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is less than commercial quantity. Accordingly, she is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant being a lady aged about 42 years and she has no criminal antecedent and the quantity of psychotropic substance i.e. 31.12 gram of heroin seized from the possession of the applicant, is less than commercial quantity and the conclusion of 4 the trial is likely to take sometime and further the applicant is in jail since 26.01.2025, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Let applicant, Shadika Begum, involved in Crime No.23/2025, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 her, in accordance with law, under 5 Section Section 209 of 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal