[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Reshma Nagariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16897
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3318 of 2026
Reshma Nagariya W/o Umit Nagariya Aged About 28 Years R/o
Subhash Nagar, Dewar Para, Thana Telibandha, District Raipur,
AKHILESH
Digitally
signed by
Chhattisgarh.
KUMAR AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
DEWANGAN
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13/04/2026
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. 19/2026 registered at Police Station
Telibandha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.01.2026, as per
secret information received from the informant, the Police of
concerned Police Station seized 3.800 kgs of Ganja from the
possession of the applicant which led to the registration of alleged
offence against the applicant and subsequently, the applicant was
arrested, hence, the bail application .
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was
not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He
further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the
provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken
search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that
from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the
psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it
will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the
commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is
more than 20 kgs and from the possession of the applicant only
3.800 kg Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the
applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under the
BNS, which has already been disposed of, copy of the same has
filed through covering memo, and she is in jail since 15.01.2026
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 submits that present applicant has one
criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under the BNS. He further
submits that from the possession of the applicant contraband
article i.e. 3.800 kg of Ganja is seized, therefore, the present
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 only one criminal antecedent,
which is of the year 2024 under the BNS, which has already been
disposed of, and the contraband article i.e. 3.800 kg Ganja
recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the
commercial quantity and the charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case before the competent Court, 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 - Reshma Nagariya, involved in Crime No.
19/2026 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Bilaspur
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) 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. 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 for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Akhil
