1 2025:CGHC:52324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6641 of 2025 1 - Manisha Makhija W/o Amit Makhija Aged About 38 Years R/o In Front Of Shani Mandir Ward No.10, Shankar Nagar Durg Police Station - Mohan Nagar District- Durg Chhattisgarh (Particulars Of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly) --- Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar District- Durg (C.G.) --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 7041 of 2025 1 - Santosh Chandrakar S/o Late Bhurva Chandrakar Aged About 46 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Behind Sindhi Dharamshala, Ward No. 24, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station- Supela, Post- Smriti Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (As Per Charge Sheet) --- Non-applicant MCRC NO. 6641/2025 For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer MCRC NO. 7041/2025 For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer SB : Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice ORDER ON BOARD SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 27.10.2025 1. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 640/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, Chowki – Smriti Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22, 8 (B), 27 (a), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution's case is that, on 31.05.2025, the police of the concerned police station received secret information that the applicants along with other co-accused persons were standing outside Look and Shine Family Saloon, Katulboard Bhilai and were trying to sell psychotropic tablets. Based upon the information, the police authorities of P.S. Supela, Chowki – Smriti Nagar conducted raid and caught the applicants and recovered 45 Tablets of Alprazolam from Lingraj, 130 Spas Trancun plus from accused Somnath Pandey and 144 Tablets of Spas Trancun plus from the applicant Santosh Chandrakar and thereafter, the authorities have seized the drugs and arrested them on 31.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respective applicants submit that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case, they have not committed any offence as alleged. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the the applicant in MCRC No. 6641/2025 submits that the applicant is a lady and she was not present in the place of incident and no drugs have been seized from the possession of the applicant. He submits that only a mobile phone has been seized from her possession which belongs to the applicant Santosh Chandrakar. He further contended that the applicant being a lady is selling cloths in the markets of Durg District to earn her livelihood and on the date of incident also, the applicant was only doing her business and was not related to the offence in any manner. She was not acquainted about the sale of drugs by 3 the applicant Santosh Chandrakar and only used to receive money of Santosh Chandrakar on her account in lieu of which, the applicant Santosh Chandrakar used to give her cash. There is no material available against her and she has been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused Santosh Chandrakar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and she is an old aged lady and the bread-winner of her family and is in jail since 31.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 7041/2025 submits that the said drugs article i.e. 144 capsules of Spas Trancun plus was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant whereas, it was seized from the possession of two other co-accused persons which is also less than the commercial quantity. He also submits that offence under Section 8 (b) is not attracted against the applicant as there is no allegation of cultivation of the opium or cannabis and offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act is also not attracted as no documentary or oral evidence is available to show that the applicant has consumed the said drug. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 31.0.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. Further, he submits that there specific allegations against the applicants of selling the psychotropic substances in an open market which may affect the general public at large. However, he further submits that there two criminal antecedents against the applicant Santosh Chandrakar of the year 2006 and 4 2007 and therefore, they may not be granted bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for the respective parties and further, the fact that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, period of pre-trial detention, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant Manisha Makhija and further, the conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants – Manisha Makhija in MCRC No. 6641/2025 and Santosh Chandrakar in MCRC No. 7041/2025, involved in Crime No. 640/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, Chowki – Smriti Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22, 8 (B), 27 (a), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. 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 Dey