1 2025:CGHC:35835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4267 of 2025 Lalita Sagar W/o Sarju Sagar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Badarthakur, Pathariya, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. This is the Second 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. 465/2024 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21 & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that on 15.09.2024 police of Police Station Takhatpur received a secret information by the informant that VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.25 19:08:24 +0530 2 some persons are selling Raxogesic ampoules and they are searching customers near Pandariya road in Takhatpur. On the basis of the secret information given by the secret informant, the police of Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) conducted raid near Pandariya road, Takhatpur and recovered 854 Raxogesic ampoules joint from the accused persons Amit Singh Takhur, Mahendra Sagar and present applicant Lalita Sagar. The police of Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) registered FIR bearing Crime No. 465/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 21 and 22 of NDPS Act against the accused persons. 3. The applicant contends that she has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no prior criminal record. She is suffering from a serious gynecological condition—second-degree uterine prolapse— requiring urgent surgical intervention (hysterectomy), which cannot be adequately addressed in jail due to lack of medical facilities. Despite ongoing treatment, her condition has worsened. The alleged contraband (Raxogesic ampoules) was not recovered from her conscious possession, and there is no direct evidence linking her to its sale or distribution. The evidence against her is circumstantial and weak. She poses no risk of re offending, has been in custody since 15.09.2024, and the trial is still pending. Furthermore, the quantity of contraband may not qualify as “commercial,” reducing the applicability of strict bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She seeks bail on these grounds and reserves the right to raise additional arguments during the hearing and she is in jail since 15.09.2024, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that though the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court, the contraband article i.e. 854 Raxogesic ampoules, each containing 2ml of buprenorphine recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused persons, which are 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. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the contraband article, i.e., 854 Raxogesic ampoules, each containing 2 ml of Buprenorphine, a psychotropic substance was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The total quantity of the contraband recovered is much above the threshold of "commercial quantity" as defined under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the said contraband. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant’s first bail application was dismissed on merits, and there is no substantial change in the factual matrix or legal position warranting a different view in the present application, I am not inclined to allow the second bail application. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Lalita Sagar, involved in Crime No. 465/2024 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under 4 Section 21 & 22 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 vaibhav