1 2025:CGHC:59210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9981 of 2025 Sonam Bai Solanki @ Sonam Bai Pimpide W/o Jitendra @ Jitu Pimpide, Aged About 35 Years R/o Railway Station, Balangir, District Balangir (Odisha) Permanent Address- 39(D) Turakhapa, Village Sitiyagohna, Sohagpur, P.S. Sohagpur, District Narmadapuram (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O6cer, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the :rst bail application :led 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. 36/2025 registered at Police Station- Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o>ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the brief prosecution story, on 15.04.2025, the police o6cials were patrolling in connection with information about illegal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 transportation of contraband (Ganja) in vehicle No. CG04PC2687. During patrolling, at about 7:30 PM, they received a secret information that :ve persons were carrying Ganja and were waiting for a bus at NH-53, Village Ganayari Pali Chowk. Upon receiving the information, the police informed the SDOP, Saraipali, and immediately proceeded to the said location. As per the information, four female and one male person were found waiting at the bus stop with three bags. On noticing the police, they attempted to Bee, but were apprehended by the police o6cials. On being questioned as to why they were running, all the accused persons admitted that they were carrying Ganja in their bags and stated that they had brought the Ganja from Odisha and were transporting it to Raipur (C.G.) for sale. Upon further inquiry, they disclosed their names as: (1) Sonam Bai Solanki W/o Jitendra Solanki, (2) Malti Solanki W/o Rolex Solanki, (3) Sunita Solanki W/o Nilesh Solanki, (4) Deepali Pawar W/o Litti Pawar, and (5) Gurjar Pawar S/o Suklal Pawar. During checking, a total of 21 packets of illegal contraband Ganja weighing 21 kg were seized from them, and thereafter the alleged o>ences were registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no contraband was recovered from her exclusive possession and the alleged Ganja was seized from Ganyari Pali Chowk. It is submitted that on the date of the incident, she and the co-accused were simply returning from visiting relatives and were apprehended at the bus stand without any lawful basis. It is further submitted that the applicant is 3 a woman having a 7-year-old child who has been in jail with her since 15.04.2025 and is su>ering from ailments. He also submits that on similar allegations, co-accused Smt. Malti Bai has already been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No. 8156/2025 vide order dated 13.11.2025, and therefore the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 15.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submit that the charge- sheet has been :led in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that 21 kg of Ganja has been seized in the present case and the allegations attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the bene:t of parity is not available because the co-accused whose bail was allowed had a distinct circumstance, she was granted bail only on the ground that she had a 1½-year-old child with her, which is not the case here. It is further pointed out that on the very same date, i.e., 13.11.2025, in M.Cr.C. No. 8156/2025, the bail application of another co-accused, Sunita Bai, was rejected considering the seriousness of the o>ence and the quantity of contraband, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, this Court :nds that though the 21 kg of Ganja was seized in the case and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, but the seizure was not made from the exclusive possession of the applicant, recovered from the spot at Ganyari Pali Chowk where all the accused persons were apprehended together. The applicant is a woman and is in custody since 15.04.2025, and she has a 7-year-old child who has been in jail with her and is su>ering from ailments. Further observes that on similar allegations, co-accused Smt. Malti Bai has been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No. 8156/2025 vide order dated 13.11.2025 on humanitarian considerations relating to her 1½-year-old child. Though the bail application of another co-accused, Sunita Bai, was rejected on the same date, the distinguishing factor in the present case is the welfare and medical condition of the applicant’s minor 7- year-old child who continues to remain in incarceration with the mother. This Court is of the considered view that the applicant stands on the same footing as the said co-accused, further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Sonam Bai Solanki @ Sonam Bai Pimpide, involved in Crime No. 36/2025 registered at Police Station- Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o>ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with 5 two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall :le an undertaking to the e>ect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed 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 :xed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without su6cient 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 :xed 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 :xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 6 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su6cient 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. O6ce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan