Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34195 (CHH)

DHARMENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/8132/2026 · 2026-09-01

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010336102026 2026:CGHC:38846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8132 of 2026 Dharmendra Singh S/o Puran Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Makhan Vindi P.S. Jadiyalal Guru, District Amritsar, Punjab. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Crime No.118/2025, registered at Police Station – Amanaka, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.269/2026. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the Police of Police Station – Amanaka, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of the said information, the Police authority has seized a total of 12.69 Grams of Heroin from the possession of the applicant and the co-accused. Thereafter, applicant was arrested and case registered by the Police. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that so far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined by the trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 15.04.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 12.69 Grams of Heroin has been seized from the possession of the applicant and the co-accused, though the same is less than the commercial quantity, but the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.269/2026, on the ground that there is a criminal case registered against the applicant which is under the NDPS Act, and the same is still pending. Hence, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the ground made by the the applicant that till date out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined by the trial Court, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that a total of 12.69 Grams of Heroin has been seized from the possession of the applicant and the co- accused, though the same is less than the commercial quantity, but the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide 3 order dated 24.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.269/2026, on the ground that there is a criminal case registered against the applicant which is under the NDPS Act, and the same is still pending, and no new good ground has been raised by the counsel for the applicant, hence, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case is enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant second bail application of applicant – Dharmendra Singh, involved in Crime No.118/2025, registered at Police Station – Amanaka, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. 11. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar