Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23589 (CHH)

DILIP KUMAR @ DILIP KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/5636/2026 · 2026-06-28

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:26319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5636 of 2026 Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Yadav S/o Nathuni Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Budhanpurwa, P.S. Kotwali District Baksar, Bihar ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police of Police Station Purur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 112/2024 registered at Police Station Purur, District – Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 9138 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 on merits. 3. As per the prosecution case, on receipt of secret information from an informer that a silver-coloured Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No. MP-04-BA-1911, carrying two passengers and contraband substance, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.30 11:04:37 +0530 2 namely Ganja, was proceeding through the area, the police erected a barricade near Jagtara Durga Mandir on NH-30 at about 7:30 hours and intercepted the said vehicle. Thereafter, on 24.09.2024, the police allegedly seized 74 kilograms of Ganja from the said vehicle. Accordingly, it is alleged that the offence was committed and an FIR was registered as Crime No. 112/2024. Subsequently, the applicant was arrested for the commission of the alleged offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.11.2025. Out of the total 22 prosecution witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined so far, and they have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. He submits that the present applicant is merely the driver of the vehicle and was working on a salary basis, whereas the main accused in the case is still absconding. He also submits that the alleged forged documents relating to the vehicle were proved by the owner of the vehicle himself. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 24.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, prayer is made for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From a perusal of the pleadings, it appears that no new ground has been raised in this second bail application, except that, till date, only 3 out of the 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Thus, I do not find any sufficient ground for granting bail. Accordingly, this second bail 3 application filed by the present applicant is rejected at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Yadav, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS involved in Crime No. 112/2024 registered at Police Station Purur, District – Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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