1 2025:CGHC:48060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7521 of 2025 Anjali Gendle Dharmendra Gendle Aged About 25 Years R/o Mini Basti, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.09.2025 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 Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4259/2025, vide order dated 12.06.2025 on the ground that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. Hence this second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the Police of Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police personnel reached at concerned spot where conducted raid and have seized a total of 854 Raxogesic ampoules from the possession of the co-accused persons, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and the crime has been registered by the Police. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 in MCRC No. 4259/2025, only on the ground that the applicant had one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the present second bail application has been filed on a new ground that in the said NDPS case, the applicant has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court, a copy of the said judgment has been filed as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that, except for the recovery of ₹8,000/-, nothing incriminating has been seized from the possession of the applicant in the present case. The applicant has been in custody since 05.01.2025 and, as of now, only charges have been framed against her. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that a total of 854 Raxogesic ampoules were recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons, and 3 the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons hence, this bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 in MCRC No. 4259/2025, only on the ground that the applicant had one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act and the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that in the said NDPS case, now the applicant has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, a copy of the said judgment has been filed as Annexure A/3 and further the applicant being a lady and has been in custody since 05.01.2025 and in trial, as of now, only charges have been framed against her, hence this Court deems it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Second bail application of the applicant namely- Anjali Gendle, involved in Crime No. 465/2024 registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS 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 4 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 sufficient 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 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 her, 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 applicant is 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 her in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal