1 CGHC010271132026 2026:CGHC:31469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6636 of 2026 Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Kenwat Aged About 40 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address Patliputra Nagar, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant Digitally signed by For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.24 For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. 13:20:51 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 482/2026 registered at Police Station - Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.04.2026, Shri Bharat Lal Rathore, Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), allegedly received secret information that two 2

women, namely Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi (Accused No. 1) and Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav (Accused No. 2), were illegally possessing and selling Ganja at Patliputra, Rajkishore Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). Upon receipt of the said information, the necessary statutory formalities were completed, whereafter the police party, along with other staff members and independent witnesses, proceeded to the place indicated by the informant. After laying a blockade, the police conducted a raid and found the aforesaid two women sitting on two scooty vehicles outside a house. Upon being questioned, they disclosed their identities as Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi (Accused No. 1) and Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav (Accused No. 2). It is further alleged that, during the search, 5 kilograms of Ganja, one scooty, one car, two wristwatches, one mobile phone, and cash amounting to Rs. 5,98,030/-were seized from the possession of Accused No. 1, Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi. Similarly, 1 kilogram of Ganja, one Activa scooter, and one mobile phone were allegedly seized from the possession of Accused No. 2, Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the police registered the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He also submits that though the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, in 01 case the applicant has already been acquitted by the trial Court. He also submits that the applicant has been in jail since 12.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the the fact that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav, involved in Crime No. 482/2026 registered at Police Station - Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek

1 CGHC010271132026 2026:CGHC:31469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6636 of 2026 Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Kenwat Aged About 40 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address Patliputra Nagar, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant Digitally signed by For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.24 For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. 13:20:51 +0530 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 482/2026 registered at Police Station - Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.04.2026, Shri Bharat Lal Rathore, Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), allegedly received secret information that two 2

women, namely Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi (Accused No. 1) and Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav (Accused No. 2), were illegally possessing and selling Ganja at Patliputra, Rajkishore Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). Upon receipt of the said information, the necessary statutory formalities were completed, whereafter the police party, along with other staff members and independent witnesses, proceeded to the place indicated by the informant. After laying a blockade, the police conducted a raid and found the aforesaid two women sitting on two scooty vehicles outside a house. Upon being questioned, they disclosed their identities as Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi (Accused No. 1) and Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav (Accused No. 2). It is further alleged that, during the search, 5 kilograms of Ganja, one scooty, one car, two wristwatches, one mobile phone, and cash amounting to Rs. 5,98,030/-were seized from the possession of Accused No. 1, Manki Kenwat @ Vinita Joshi. Similarly, 1 kilogram of Ganja, one Activa scooter, and one mobile phone were allegedly seized from the possession of Accused No. 2, Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the police registered the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He also submits that though the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, in 01 case the applicant has already been acquitted by the trial Court. He also submits that the applicant has been in jail since 12.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the the fact that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sudama Kenwat @ Rani Yadav, involved in Crime No. 482/2026 registered at Police Station - Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek