1 CGHC010218272026 2026:CGHC:32656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.CrC. No.5254 of 2026 Pinki Harijan Wife Of Devanand Mandal Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Goipata, District Kalahandi Odisha ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Shubham Bajpai, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.113/2026 registered at Police SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.30 11:14:18 +0530 2 Station – Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, is that on 09.02.2026, on the basis of secret information, the Police of Police Station Tikrapara conducted a raid near Bhathagaon Bus Stand, Raipur, where the present Applicant was allegedly found handing over packets of contraband ganja to co- accused Kshitij Pratap Singh and a juvenile in conflict with law namely Rishabh Rajak. Upon search, 1.948 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the possession of the present Applicant, 2.004 kilograms from the possession of co- accused Kshitij Pratap Singh and 1.986 kilograms from the possession of the juvenile, making a total seizure of 5.938 kilograms of ganja. During the course of investigation, the Applicant, in her memorandum statement, disclosed that she had come to Raipur from her parental home on 07.02.2026 and that co-accused Ramkrishna Tiwari informed her that the contraband ganja had been entrusted to him by her husband for sale, which he could not sell. Based on these applications, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present 3 case. It is contended that the alleged contraband was not recovered from her exclusive and conscious possession and that the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure in accordance with law. It is further contended that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 42. It is also submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in judicial custody since 09.02.2026, being a poor lady and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, she may be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the quantity of contraband ganja allegedly seized from the possession of the present Applicant, the period of custody of the Applicant since 09.02.2026, the absence of any criminal antecedents on the part of the Applicant and also considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is 4 of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Pinki Harijan involved in Crime No.113/2026 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act be released on bail on her furnishing a 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 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 5 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 Priya