1 CGHC010372902026 2026:CGHC:43646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8933 of 2026 1 - Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Kenwat Aged About 40 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Police Station - Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Present Address Patliputra Nagar, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 8.10.2026 1) This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 23.7.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.6636 of 2026. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in NIRMALA RAO 2 connection with Crime No.482 of 2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police seized 6 kg of Ganja from the joint possession of the applicant and Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi on 12.4.2026. After complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, an FIR was registered against the applicant. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application was rejected in M.Cr.C. No.6636 of 2026 on 23.7.2026, as there were two criminal antecedents of a similar nature against the applicant. He would submit that in one of the cases, the applicant has already been acquitted by the competent Court. It is also argued that in the pending criminal case, 2 kg of Ganja was seized from the possession of the present applicant. He would further submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in jail since 12.4.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has one live criminal antecedent of a similar nature and that the first bail application of the present applicant was rejected on 23.7.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.6636 of 2026. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 3 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the fact that the applicant is a lady, she has been in jail since 12.4.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, she has only one live criminal antecedent of a similar nature, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) she shall make herself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court; and (c) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi