1 2026:CGHC:11706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2299 of 2026 Sunita Chhaba W/o Omprakash Chhaba Aged About 44 Years R/o- Gorkha, Bhagwanpur P.S.- Kotra Road, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Ananya Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026 1. This is the 7rst bail application 7led 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. 346/2023 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the o:ence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.05.2023, Sub- Inspector Kamal Kishore Patel of Police Station City Kotwali, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Raigarh, received information from an informant that two persons were transporting ganja in a grey coloured car bearing registration No. CG-11-E-0658 from Odisha towards Raigarh for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police team arranged a blockade near Deendayal Apartment Chowk, Raigarh, in the presence of witnesses Abhishek Patel and Umesh Vaishnav along with other police personnel. During the blockade, the said vehicle was intercepted wherein co-accused Manish was driving the car and the present applicant was sitting in the vehicle along with him. After informing them about the information received, their consent for search was obtained under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Upon search of the vehicle, 08 packets of ganja-like substance concealed in two white plastic bags kept in the trunk of the car were recovered, weighing approximately 40 kilograms in total. On the basis of the said recovery, o:ences under the provisions of the NDPS Act were registered against the applicant and the co-accused. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations levelled against her are false, baseless and malicious. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and that Mohammad Saddam Malik (PW-1), the weigher of the electronic scale, and Umesh Vaishnav (PW-2), the independent memorandum and seizure witness, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile, copies of their depositions being 7led as 3 Annexure A-3. She further submits that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined till date and therefore the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, whereas the applicant is in jail since 08.05.2023 and has already undergone more than two years of incarceration. It is also submitted that the applicant is a lady aged about 44 years and she has not played any active role in the alleged o:ence as she was merely travelling along with the co-accused and had no knowledge about the contraband ganja allegedly kept in the vehicle. It is further contended that the police have not conducted a proper investigation to establish the involvement of the applicant in the alleged o:ence. She also submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has 7led before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, she prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has been 7led in the present case before the competent Court however, the quantity of contraband article i.e. 40 kgs of Ganja which has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant along with co- accused, is much above the commercial quantity. She also submits that the second bail application of the other co-accused person namely, Manish Chaudhry, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1502/2026, vide order dated 11.02.2026, and as such, the applicant is also not entitled to be released on bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Upon perusal of the case diary and the material available on record, this Court observes that the contraband article i.e. 40 kgs of Ganja which has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give an explanation regarding the same and it cannot be a case of false implication, further the second bail application of the other co-accused person namely, Manish Chaudhry, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1502/2026, vide order dated 11.02.2026. The ground raised in this bail application is that the applicant is in jail since 08.05.2023 and the independent witnesses have been examined and not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. 7. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos.7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025) decided on 13.11.2025 has observed that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail. 8. Considering the fact that trial is in progress and also in the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vigin K. Varghese (supra) that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail, therefore I do not 7nd any good ground to entertain this bail application. 5 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Sunita Chhaba, involved in Crime No. 346/2023 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the o:ence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. OFce is directed to send a certi7ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan