1 CGHC010217582026 2026:CGHC:30983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5407 of 2026 S. Nirmala W/o Vikash Gaikwad Aged About 32 Years Resident Of House No. 20/8, Pm Awas, 32 Acres Housing Board, Bhilai, Police Station- Jamul, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Jamul, District Durg (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 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. 290/2026 registered at Police Station – Jamul, District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a search was conducted by the police at the house of the applicant, during which 2.880 kg of alleged VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.22 11:06:19 +0530 2 Ganja was recovered and seized from her possession. On the basis of the said recovery, a case was registered against the applicant under the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges that the applicant was found in conscious possession of the seized contraband and, accordingly, she was arrested in connection with the said offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that She has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offence. The applicant is a poor domestic worker and the sole breadwinner of her family, having the responsibility of maintaining her two minor children, as her husband has been living separately for several years and there is no other earning member in the family. She is also a woman who frequently remains ill, and her continued incarceration is causing severe physical, mental, and financial hardship to her family. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.05.2026, and as the investigation/trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, her further detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, particularly when the alleged recovery is only 2.880 kg of Ganja, which is below the commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the applicant's conscious and exclusive possession of the alleged contraband, no independent witness has supported the prosecution case, and the entire case is based substantially on police witnesses and documentary evidence. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Durg, has deep roots 3 in society, and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the first bail application was rejected primarily on the ground of alleged criminal antecedents; however, the alleged antecedents pertain only to offences under the Excise Act and not under the NDPS Act. Moreover, in one of the said cases, the proceedings were stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and the applicant was discharged vide order dated 21.09.2024, and therefore the same cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent for denying bail. As the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation and undertakes to cooperate with the trial and abide by any condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 01.05.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – S. Nirmala, involved in Crime No. 290/2026 4 registered at Police Station – Jamul, District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his 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 him, 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. 8. 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 Vaibhav