SUMITRA KHUNTE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010324042026 2026:CGHC:38327
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7879 of 2026
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
KUMARI
Date:
2026.09.01
12:45:15
+0530
Sumitra Khunte W/o Shankarlal Khunte, Aged About 28 Years, Resident of
PREETI
KUMARI
Village- Godboradi, Police Station- Kharsia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Correctly
Mentioned As W/o Shankarlal Khunte)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana-In-Charge, Jutmil, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer.
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This is the Second bail application filed 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. 381/2024
registered at Police Station - Jutemill, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the
offence under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this
Court in MCRC No.78 of 2025 vide order dated 08.01.2025.
3. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of secret information received
from an informer, Inspector Mohan Bhardwaj of Police Station Jute Mill,
District Raigarh, conducted a raid on 28.08.2024 near the Kodatarai

2
Airstrip, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jute Mill. During the raid,
two sacks of ganja were allegedly recovered and seized from a white Alto
car bearing Registration No. CG-13/AS-6967, and three sacks of ganja
were allegedly recovered and seized from a Tata S Gold vehicle bearing
Registration No. CG-13/AM-2987. In all, a total of 175 kilograms of
narcotic drug (ganja), allegedly being transported for the purpose of sale,
was seized in the presence of independent witnesses. Consequently,
Crime No. 381/2024 was registered for the offence punishable under
Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of
investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the accused,
Santram Khunte, the police allegedly found that the other accused
persons, namely, Bhagwat Sahu, Deepak @ Nanhu Bhardwaj, Vyomkesh
@ Vyoma, and Kishore Sahu, were jointly involved in the transportation of
ganja. Pursuant thereto, two vehicles, six mobile phones, and cash were
seized. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested, and upon
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the
concerned Court.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there are 22
prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 16 have been examined till date.
He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Vyomkesh Khatua and
Deepak @ Nanhu Bharadwaj, have been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.
14183/2025 and 15232/2025. Subsequently, the other co-accused,
namely, Bhagwat Sahu, Kishore Sahu, Mahendra Tandon, Santram
Khunte and Rajaram Sonwani have also been enlarged on bail by this
Court in MCRC Nos. 9791/2025, 9864/2025, 6023/2026, 6922/2026,

3
6920/2026 vide orders dated 03.12.2025, 08.07.2026, 30.07.2026,
respectively. Further, co-accused, namely, Ankit Singh has already been
granted second bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2026 passed in
MCRC No. 6576/2026. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the
present applicant is identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused and, the
applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since
28.08.2024, accordingly, he is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail on
the ground of parity.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and
submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the case, however, he
could not dispute the fact that the co-accused have been granted bail by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that the co-accused, namely, Vyomkesh Khatua and
Deepak @ Nanhu Bharadwaj, have been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.
14183/2025 and 15232/2025, subsequently, the other co-accused,
namely, Bhagwat Sahu, Kishore Sahu, Mahendra Tandon, Santram
Khunte and Rajaram Sonwani have also been enlarged on bail by this
Court in MCRC Nos. 9791/2025, 9864/2025, 6023/2026, 6922/2026,
6920/2026 vide orders dated 03.12.2025, 08.07.2026, 30.07.2026,
respectively, further, co-accused, namely, Ankit Singh has already been
granted second bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2026 passed in
MCRC No. 6576/2026, and considering that out of 22 prosecution
witnesses, 16 have already been examined, the applicant has no previous

4
criminal antecedents, the applicant has been in jail since 28.08.2024,
conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of
the opinion that the present applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular
bail in the present case on the ground of parity.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed . Let the Applicant - Sumitra
Khunte, involved in Crime No. 381/2024 registered at Police Station -
Jutemill, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(b) and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be
released on bail on 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 his
counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during
trial and in order to secure his 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 him, 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

5
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

Preeti