1 2026:CGHC:25206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5409 of 2026 D Sunita W/o Lt D Mohan Aged About 55 Years R/o Sheetla Mandir, Behind Chaurasia Hotel, Camp 02, Bhilai Ps Chhawani District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhawani, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. This is the First 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. 176/2026 registered at Police Station – Chhawani, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 31.03.2026, acting upon a secret information, the police received information that a woman RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was attempting to sell contraband Ganja near Baikunthdham Mandir. Pursuant to the said information, the police conducted a search and allegedly recovered 2.060 kilograms of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. On the basis of the said recovery, the police registered the present offence against the applicant and took her into custody. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned Trial Court, and the case is presently pending for trial. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no cogent material available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with during search, seizure and investigation, and there are serious infirmities in the chain of custody of the seized contraband. He further submits that the alleged quantity of Ganja recovered from the applicant is 2.060 kilograms, which falls within the intermediate quantity, and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. He further submits that though the present applicant has three criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act which are pending, but charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and she is in jail since 31.03.2026 for more than 3 two months and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He submits that 2.060 k.g. of Ganja seized from the possession of the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant has 03 criminal antecedents in the similar nature which are pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such offences and is a habitual offender, 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 facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the contraband article i.e. 2.060 k.g. of Ganja seized from the possession of the present applicant and the applicant has 03 criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act bearing crime Nos. 163/2024, 40/2024 and 498/2025 which are pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such offences and is a habitual offender, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – D Sunita, involved in Crime No. 176/2026 registered at Police Station – Chhawani, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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 Rahul Dewangan