Facts
The applicant, Tilotma Yadav, was arrested on October 2, 2025, following a police raid on October 1, 2025, at a residence in Village Durgapur
Source reference: para 2Authorities seized 200 bottles of Onerex Cough Syrup, 85 packets of Spasmo-Proxyvon Plus capsules, 220 Butrum injections, and Rs. 8,40,000/- in cash, alleged to be sale proceeds
Source reference: para 2The applicant admitted during interrogation that she and her absconding husband were involved in the sale of narcotic medicines
Source reference: para 2The applicant sought bail on the grounds of being a housewife with a minor child, lack of exclusive possession, and non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions
Source reference: para 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the quantity of contraband seized and the nature of the evidence
Source reference: para 1, 6Law Applied
Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, pertaining to the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations
Source reference: para 1Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail
Source reference: para 1The principle that the possession of contraband exceeding "commercial quantity" significantly restricts the discretion to grant bail, especially when the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the possession
Source reference: para 4, 6Reasoning
The Court examined the materials on record and balanced the applicant's personal circumstances (being a housewife with a four-year-old child) against the gravity of the offense
Source reference: para 3, 6It noted that the quantity of contraband (Onerex, Spasmo-Proxyvon, and Butrum injections) recovered from the applicant's possession exceeded the "commercial quantity" defined under the NDPS Act
Source reference: para 4, 6The Court highlighted the seizure of a substantial sum of cash (Rs. 8,40,000/-) as evidence of active involvement in the sale of narcotics
Source reference: para 6The Court observed that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the possession of these prohibited substances and noted that her husband and co-accused is currently absconding, which weighed against the grant of bail
Source reference: para 6Holding
The Court held that the case was not fit for the grant of regular bail due to the commercial quantity of the contraband seized and the lack of a plausible explanation from the applicant
The first bail application was rejected
Source reference: para 7The trial court was directed to be informed of the order
Source reference: para 8Original Court PDF
TILOTMA YADAVvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in