1 CGHC010333242026 2026:CGHC:38065-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7979 of 2026 Smt. Rani Singh W/o Ram Kishore Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o. Bandhwapara, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Shivraj Singh Shrinet in person (brother of the applicant For Non-applicant : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), seeking regular bail for the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 207/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for offences BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.25 17:00:10 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, upon receiving secret information, a raid was conducted at the house of the applicant, where she was residing with her two daughters and one nephew. During the raid, she was arrested on 15.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing NRX Clonazepam Tablets IP (Rivotril). A total of 2,925 tablets were allegedly recovered. Out of the four boxes, three boxes contained 60 strips each, while one box contained 45 strips, with each strip containing 15 tablets. The boxes were allegedly kept under the staircase in a red polythene bag. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged on 15.02.2026. 3. Shrivraj Singh Shrinet, appearing in person on behalf of the applicant, submits that several proceedings have been instituted between the applicant and her husband, Ramkishore Singh, relating to maintenance, recovery of maintenance, custody of children and divorce. It is submitted that Ramkishore Singh is the owner/proprietor of a medical shop known as “Shri Ram Medical Store”, situated at Ashok Nagar Chowk, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). In view of the existing matrimonial dispute and the nature of his business, the applicant has a strong and bona fide apprehension that the medicines involved in the present NDPS case were planted in her house with the intention of falsely implicating her. He further submits that the applicant has been 3 falsely implicated by her husband, Ramkishore Singh @ Rajkishore Singh, in collusion with Shailendra Singh, who is posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sarkanda. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, has been in custody since 15.02.2026, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/non-applicant, opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that a total of 2,925 tablets were recovered from the premises of the applicant. He submits that out of the four boxes, three boxes contained 60 strips each, while one box contained 45 strips, with each strip containing 15 tablets. The boxes were kept under the staircase in a red polythene bag, and the entire incident was videographed by the police. He further submits that the applicant has a previous criminal antecedent in respect of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, contended that, considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. During the course of hearing, a pointed query was put to the learned Additional Advocate General as to whether a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 had been 4 obtained in respect of the videography of the incident. In response, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that no such certificate has been obtained. 7. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the daughters, brother and nephew of the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing WPCR No. 489/2026, in which the applicant herein was arrayed as respondent No. 13. The said matter was heard by this Court on 20.08.2026. After considering the submissions advanced before it, this Court, inter alia, directed the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, to file his personal affidavit regarding the past conduct of respondent No. 11- Shailendra Singh and to explain as to how respondent No. 11, who had lodged the Dehati Nalishi on the basis of which the FIR was registered, was permitted to investigate the matter and subsequently submit the charge-sheet against respondent No. 13. The matter was thereafter directed to be listed on 24.08.2026. 8. On 24.08.2026, it was brought to the notice of the Court in WPCR No. 489/2026 that respondent No. 13 therein, namely, Smt. Rani Bai, had filed the present bail application. On the said date, it was directed that WPCR No. 489/2026 be listed along with the present bail application on 25.08.2026, after obtaining nomination from Hon’ble the Chief Justice (on administrative side). Accordingly, both the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by separate orders. 9. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the material 5 available on record and the circumstances emerging from the case diary, this Court finds that the applicant has been in custody since 15.02.2026 and that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents relating to any offence under the NDPS Act. The defence has also raised a specific plea regarding the existence of a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and her husband and the alleged false implication of the applicant by her husband, Ramkishore Singh @ Rajkishore Singh, in collusion with Shailendra Singh, who is posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sarkanda, further the prosecution itself has stated that the incident was videographed. However, upon a specific query being put to the learned Additional Advocate General, it has been fairly admitted that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been obtained in respect of such videography. This aspect, coupled with the other circumstances noted hereinabove, is also a relevant consideration at this stage. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the fact that the applicant has been in custody since 15.02.2026, the filing of the charge-sheet before the competent Court, the absence of any previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, and the circumstances relating to the alleged matrimonial dispute, this Court is mindful that ordinarily bail would not be granted in a case involving commercial quantity of contraband allegedly recovered 6 from the staircase of the applicant’s house, however, the brother of the applicant has vehemently argued before this Court that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, further, the prosecution has fairly admitted that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been obtained in respect of the videography of the incident. These circumstances have weighed with this Court while considering the present bail application. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant – Smt.Rani Singh, involved in Crime No. 207/2026 registered at Police Station-Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 21(C) and 22 the of NDPS Act be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two 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. 7 In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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. 12. Certfied copy today. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- Sd - (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu