1 2025:CGHC:44354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6896 of 2025 Smt. Minati Sahu Wife Dashrath Sahu Aged About 40 Years Resident of Birnar Singh Maupda, Police Station - Baudh, District- Baudh (Odisha) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Police Station - Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.276/2025, registered at Police Station: Police Station - Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B)(11-C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution's case, based on information from an informant, the police of Seepat Police Station recovered 10.945 kg PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.02 17:05:33 +0530 2 of cannabis from accused Balkrishna Sisodiya alias Arjun and 11.400 kg from accused Devkumar Suryawanshi at Village Matiyari, behind Shiv Mandir. During interrogation, both accused gave memorandum statements alleging that they had procured the cannabis from the present applicant. Based on these statements, the applicant was arrested on 03.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation against the applicant is based on the statement of a co-accused, from whom a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered, and whose bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4157/2025. The co-accused is alleged to have stated that he used to purchase the contraband from the applicant, who is a resident of Odisha. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 03.07.2025. As the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession i.e. 22.345 kgs of Ganja, which is above the commercial quantity. Further the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Devkumar Suryavanshi has already been 3 rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4157/2025, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the fact that the bail application of co-accused Devkumar Suryawanshi has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 in MCRC No. 4157/2025, on the ground that the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons i.e. 22.345 kgs of Ganja, is above the commercial quantity and the allegation against the applicant is that the co-accused used to purchase the contraband article from the applicant, this Court is of the view that the present case is not fit for granting bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Smt. Minati Sahu involved in Crime No.276/2025, registered at Police Station: Police Station - Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B)(11-C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 4 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti