1 CGHC010313672026 2026:CGHC:38065-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 489 of 2026 1 - Shivraj Singh Shrinet S/o Nand Kumar Shrinet, Aged About 43 Years R/o 109, Tedadhaura, Mungeli C.G. --Adhar No. 408083542719. 2 - Shreya Singh Thakur D/o Ramkishore Singh Aged About 17 Years R/o Bandhwapara Sarkanda, Ward No. 54, Behind Chaubey Colony Bilaspur C.G. ---Adhar No. 230413739764 3 - Shreni Singh D/o Ramkishore Singh Aged About 13 Years R/o Bandhwapara Sakranda, Ward No. 54, Behind Chaubey Colony, Bilaspur C.G. ----Adhar No. 681615848889 4 - Saksham Singh Alias Google S/o Shivraj Singh Shrinet Aged About 14 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Tedadhaura, Mungeli C. G.--R/o Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Ward No. 54, Behind Chaubey Colony Bilaspur C.G. --Adhar No. 776899319771-- Petitioner No. 2, 3, And 4 Are Minors Represent By Petitioner No. 1 (Uncle Of Petitioner No. 2 And 3) And Father Of Petitioner No. 4 Shivraj Shrinet, S/o Nand Kumar Shrinet, Aged About 43 Years 109, Tedadhaura, Mungeli, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary Home Department Nawa, Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police Head Quarter, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Inspector General Of Police 35, Shankar Nagar Main Road Shankar Nagar District Raipur C.G. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.25 17:02:52 +0530 2 4 - District Collector / Magistrate, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Station House Officer, P. S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. 7 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh, State Women Commission Near Chief Election Commission Office, Shastri Chowk, Raipur C.G. 8 - Joint Secretary State Human Rights, Commission Near D K S Bhawan Shashtri Chowk Motibagh Chowk Rd, Near D K S Bhawan CG. 9 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur C.G. 10 - Ramkishore Singh Alias Rajkishore Singh S/o Bhagwati Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Arvind Nagar Bandhwapara Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. -- Office Medical Shop Resident Shri Ram Medical Store Ashok Nagar Chwok Sarkanda, Bilaspur C.G. --Mo. No. 9329364539 11 - Shailendra Singh Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G.--- Mo. No. 8319951051 12 - The Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of Investigation 6th Floor, Lodhi, Road Plot No. 05-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg C.G. Complex, New Delhi, 110003, 13 – Smt. Rani Singh W/o Ramkishore Singh Aged About 41 Years Bandhwapara Sarkanda, Ward No. 54, Behind Chaubey Colony Bilaspur C.G. --Now In Central Jail For Women Under The Supervision, Jail Road P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur C.G. ---Adhar No. 739524542927 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shivraj Singh Shrinet and others in persons For Respondents No.1 to 6/State For Res.No.7 For Res. No.10 For Res. No.12 : : : : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Mr.Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Mr.Vaibhav A.Goverdhan, Central Government Counsel 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.08.2026 1. Heard Shivraj Singh Shrinet and other petitioners in persons. Also heard Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State, Mr.Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 and Mr.Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.12. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct for CBI enquiry to verify whether the entire prosecution was based on True/Correct Facts regarding registration of F.I.R. No. 207/2026 registered at PS Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Consequently, Respondent 10 & Respondent No. 11 who are involved in prosecuting/harassing the Petitioners & Respondent No. 13, be prosecuted and punished for filing/registering of false case/-false report. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to Pass the direction to S.H.O. of Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur 4 (C.G.) to preserve all the CCTV Footage installed at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and all the cameras of Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur from 13.02.2026 to 16.02.2026. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the summon the Call Details, Call Records and Mobile Location, place of Mobile of Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No. 11 from the date 13.02.2026 to 16.02.2026. [All the Mobile Phones/ Mobile SIM Card which was issued to Respondent No. 10 & 11]. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to issue the Departmental Enquiry against all the police personnel of Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) who are involved in harassing and taking illegal action taken against the Petitioners & Respondent No. 13. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to undergo/perform the Medical Test such as Narco-Analysis Test, Brain Mapping, Polygraph Tests, or any other forensic diagnostic techniques against Petitioners and Respondent No. 10, 11 & 13 in connection with F.I.R. No. 207/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.6 Any other relief may deem fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The Petitioners submit that Respondent No. 13 is the mother of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and is involved in a longstanding matrimonial 5 dispute with Respondent No. 10, her husband. There have been several proceedings between them relating to maintenance, recovery of maintenance, custody of children and divorce. Respondent No. 10 is the owner/proprietor of a medical shop known as “Shri Ram Medical Store” at Ashok Nagar Chowk, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). In view of the existing matrimonial dispute and the nature of his business, the Petitioners have a strong and bona fide apprehension that the medicines involved in the present NDPS case were planted in the house of Respondent No. 13 with the intention of falsely implicating her. Respondent No. 11 is a relative of Respondent No. 10 and, according to the Petitioners, has acted in collusion with Respondent No. 10 against Respondent No. 13. The Petitioners further submit that Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were together at Sarkanda Police Station on 14.02.2026 from approximately 9:00 P.M. till midnight, i.e. immediately before the alleged raid. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 13 had gone to Durg to attend a marriage function from 09.02.2026 to 11.02.2026 and returned to Bilaspur on 13.02.2026 at about 11:00 P.M. The marriage card and photographs are already placed on record. The most important circumstance is that the alleged polythene bag was not found by Respondent No. 13. It was initially found by Petitioner No. 4, who was about 14 years of age, while flying kites on the terrace of the house. The bag contained some medicine strips, but Petitioner No. 4 did not know who had kept it there or to whom it belonged. Petitioner No. 4 made enquiries from the neighbouring persons and also searched the medicines on his mobile phone. The Petitioners are ready to produce 6 his mobile phone for forensic examination so that the search history, date and time can be independently verified. When Petitioner No. 4 informed Respondent No. 13 about the bag, she believed that it was unwanted material left on the terrace by someone. She therefore instructed the children to put the bag near the stairs, where the household waste/trash bucket was ordinarily kept, so that the Municipal Corporation vehicle could take it away. There was no knowledge or intention on the part of Respondent No. 13 to possess any prohibited substance. On 15.02.2026 at about 7:35 A.M., the police entered the house and first searched the terrace. When nothing was found there, they came near the stairs and took the said polythene bag which had been placed there along with the waste. Respondent No. 13 was thereafter taken to the Police Station and arrested. The prosecution alleges recovery of 2,925 Clonazepam/Rivotril tablets, weighing approximately 438.750 grams, and Respondent No. 13 has been prosecuted under Sections 21(c) and 22 of the NDPS Act. The charge- sheet has already been filed and the case is pending as Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 16/2026. Petitioner No. 4, despite being a minor of about 14 years, was also taken to the Police Station and was made to remain there for approximately ten hours, although there was no FIR against him. He continuously informed the police that the bag had been found by him on the terrace and that he had subsequently placed it near the stairs. 4. The Petitioners also submit that these circumstances raise a serious question regarding conscious possession and knowledge of 7 Respondent No. 13. Mere recovery of a bag from a place near the stairs cannot, by itself, establish that Respondent No. 13 knowingly possessed the alleged contraband, particularly when the bag was initially found by the minor Petitioner No. 4 on the terrace. The Petitioners further submit that the longstanding matrimonial dispute, the ownership of the medical shop by Respondent No. 10, the alleged presence of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 at the Police Station immediately before the raid, and the unusual circumstances in which the bag was found, collectively create a serious apprehension of false implication pursuant to a conspiracy against Respondent No. 13. The Petitioners are ordinary law-abiding citizens and are not seeking to obstruct the criminal proceedings. They only seek a fair, impartial and independent investigation into the source and ownership of the medicines, the circumstances in which the bag came to be placed near the stairs, the conduct and role of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, and the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Respondent No. 13. The Petitioners are ready to cooperate with any lawful investigation and are willing to produce the mobile phone of Petitioner No. 4 and other relevant material for forensic examination. The Petitioners therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to protect the personal liberty of Respondent No. 13 and pass appropriate orders for a fair and independent investigation in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State opposes the submissions made by the petitioners and submits that the FIR was registered on the 8 basis of credible secret information, which was duly recorded in the General Diary and followed by preparation of the Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama and communication to superior officers. The search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, during which 195 strips containing 2,925 tablets of Clonazepam were allegedly recovered from the house of respondent No. 13, Rani Singh. She could not satisfactorily explain her possession thereof, resulting in registration of the offence under Sections 21-C and 22 of the NDPS Act. The investigation was duly conducted and the charge-sheet was filed expeditiously, on 25.03.2026, within 38 days of registration of the FIR, and the matter is presently pending trial before the competent Court. 6. He further submits that the allegations of false implication and collusion between respondents No. 10 and 11 were independently enquired into pursuant to representations submitted by the daughters of respondent No. 13. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur examined the concerned persons, including the secret informer, and sought clarification from the Drug and Food Administration. The inquiry revealed that respondent No. 10 was not the owner of Shri Ram Medical Store; rather, the shop was owned by Madhusudan Singh. Further, the Drug and Food Administration informed that the seized batch of Clonazepam had not been supplied to Shri Ram Medical Store. The call-detail analysis also did not disclose any conversation between respondents No. 10 and 11 during the three months preceding the incident. Accordingly, the allegations were found to be baseless. The 9 mere fact that respondent No. 11 lodged the Dehati Nalishi and participated in the investigation does not by itself vitiate the investigation. He also submits that respondent No. 13 has two previous criminal cases registered against her, which are presently pending trial. The antecedents are relevant to the consideration of the allegations made in the present petition. In view of the prompt investigation, filing of charge-sheet, independent departmental inquiry into the allegations of false implication, and absence of material indicating bias or collusion, there is no justification for transferring the investigation to the CBI. The allegations raised by the petitioners are essentially matters which can be tested during the pending criminal trial. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition seeking a CBI inquiry is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 8. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 13 has been falsely implicated in connection with FIR No. 207/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, and that the alleged contraband was planted in her house at the instance of respondent Nos. 10 and 11. On the basis of such allegations, the petitioners seek transfer of the investigation to the CBI and various consequential directions. 9. It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered pursuant to the receipt of secret information, which was entered in the General Diary, 10 followed by the preparation of the requisite documents and communication to the superior police authorities. The prosecution case is that, upon search, 195 strips containing 2,925 tablets of Clonazepam were recovered from the premises of respondent No. 13 and, thereafter, she was arrested and prosecuted under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet was filed on 25.03.2026. The criminal case is presently pending before the competent Court. 10. The allegations of collusion and false implication raised by the petitioners were also the subject matter of an inquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. 11. From the material placed before us, it appears that the concerned persons were examined and clarification was also sought from the Drug and Food Administration, Bilaspur. The inquiry report records that respondent No. 10 was not the proprietor of Shri Ram Medical Store and that the seized batch of Clonazepam had not been supplied to the said medical store. The call-detail analysis also did not disclose any conversation between respondent Nos. 10 and 11 during the three months preceding the incident. 12. The contentions of the petitioners regarding the manner in which the alleged polythene bag was found, the alleged presence of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 at the police station, the circumstances in which respondent No. 13 came to be arrested, and the question of conscious possession are matters which essentially relate to the 11 appreciation of evidence. Such disputed questions cannot, in the facts of the present case, furnish sufficient ground for directing a CBI investigation, particularly when the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 13. So far as the prayer for preservation of CCTV footage, production of call-detail records/mobile-location data, departmental inquiry and subjecting the concerned persons to narco-analysis, brain-mapping or polygraph examination is concerned, we are not inclined to issue such directions in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to raise all legally permissible contentions and to produce such material as may be available to them before the competent trial Court in accordance with law. 14. It is also relevant that the allegations of false implication and collusion have already been examined at the departmental level and no material has been placed before us which would demonstrate such patent illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides as would warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for entrusting the investigation to an independent agency such as the CBI. The mere existence of a matrimonial dispute between respondent Nos. 10 and 13 or the antecedents of respondent No. 11, by themselves, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of a conspiracy to falsely implicate respondent No. 13. 15. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that respondent No. 13 12 has separately preferred a bail application being MCRC No.7979/2026 seeking her release in connection with FIR No. 207/2026. The said bail application has been heard along with the present writ petition, and by a separate order passed today, this Court has allowed the said bail application and directed her release on regular bail, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. 16. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and particularly considering that the investigation has already been completed, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, the allegations of false implication and collusion have been subjected to departmental inquiry, and no material has been placed before us demonstrating such patent illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides as would warrant transfer of the investigation to the CBI, we find no ground to interfere with the investigation already conducted or to direct a fresh investigation by an independent agency. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 17. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition. The fact that the bail application filed by respondent No. 13 has been allowed by a separate order shall also have no bearing upon the merits of the prosecution case. The observations contained in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defence of respondent No. 13. The learned trial Court shall consider the evidence independently and proceed with the 13 trial strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu