[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Divya Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16121
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3127 of 2026
Divya Jain D/o Lalit Jain Aged About 25 Years R/o G 112, R.D.A.
AKHILESH
KUMAR
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
Colony, Near Bengali Hotel, Behind Avinash Pride, Hirapur P.S.
DEWANGAN
Kabirnagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kabirnagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
08/04/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for
grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 183/2025 registered at Police Station
Kabirnagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) under Section 21(B),
21(C), 29 and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.08.2025, the police
officials of Police Station Kabinagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
received secret information that co-accused Manmohan @ Jaggu
was in possession of contraband substance. Acting upon the said
information, a search was conducted and 28.16 grams of heroin
was allegedly recovered from his possession, and he was
arrested. During investigation, his memorandum statement was
recorded wherein he stated that part of the sale proceeds had
been transferred to the bank account of his wife, who is present
applicant. On the basis of the said statement, the present
applicant was also arrested on 21.08.2025. Hence, the bail
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further
submits that the main accused in the present case is co-accused,
Manmohan @ Jaggu, and co-accused persons, who are lady,
namely, Jaspreet Kaur @ Bobby and Harpreet Kaur @ Happy
have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.03.2026
and 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 2539 of 2026 and 2919 of
2026, co-accused, Jaspreet Kaur has been granted bail on the
ground that no any independent corroborative evidence, no
contraband has been recovered from her possession, the alleged
amount in her bank account has not been specified by the
prosecution and her implication appears to be based only on her
matrimonial relationship with the main accused, Manmohan which
is insufficient to establish her involvement and co-accused,
Harpreet Kaur, has been granted bail on the ground that she is
having a child aged about 4 years. So far as present applicant is
concerned, she is a meritorious student and has been falsely
implicated in the present case, she was acquainted with the co-
accused, Manmohan Singh since her school days, and had
merely agreed to keep a closed box given by him to her, without
having any knowledge of its contents. Thus, the applicant was not
in a conscious possession of the seized package, which is
abundantly clear from the memorandum statement of co-accused.
He later submits that the applicant is a meritorious student and
had secured first rank in B.Com and presently preparing for
chartered accountant examination and her prolonged
incarceration would severely affect her carrier, further she has no
criminal antecedent and she is in jail since 21.08.2025 and the
conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long 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
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the
competent Court and also endorse the said submission that the
applicant has no criminal antecedent. She further submits that
from the possession of the applicant contraband article i.e. 28.16
gram of heroin/chitta is seized. She also submits that bail
application of the co-accused, namely, Harsh Rathi, who entered
into monetary transactions with the co-accused, Manmohan for
the purpose of dealing in contraband, has already been rejected
by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC
No.2862 of 2026, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant
of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the
contraband article i.e. 28.16 gram of heroin/chitta recovered from
the possession of the applicant is above than the commercial
quantity, for which, it is submitted that the applicant was
acquainted with the co-accused, Manmohan Singh (main
accused), since her school days and had merely agreed to keep a
closed box handed over to her by him, in which the alleged
contraband was concealed, without having any knowledge of its
contents, but considering the fact that present applicant is a lady
and is unaware of the article concealed in the box, as such, the
case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-
accused, Harsh Rathi, who entered into monetary transactions
with the main accused, Manmohan for the purpose of dealing in
contraband, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present
case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
8. Let the Applicant - Divya Jain, involved in Crime No. 183/2025
registered at Police Station Kabirnagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
(C.G.) under Section 21(B), 21(C), 29 and 27(A) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of
BNS, be released on bail on her furnishing 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. 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 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Akhil
