Dismissed¶24

Dayal Kumar Udasi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2026MCRC/5881/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS regular bail rejected; Alprazolam tablets 72 gram below commercial quantity (100 gram) per notification under clauses vii(a)/xxiii(a) of Section 2 NDPS Act; Sections 22(C) and 29 NDPS Act; Crime No. 133/2026 PS Kotwali Raipur; arrest 21.03.2026; second bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023; implication via co-accused Kayamuddin's memorandum statement; criminal antecedent of 2019; Chhattisgarh High Court MCRC No. 5881 of 2026; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; dismissed 03/07/2026.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegation, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the applicant's earlier involvement in an offence of similar nature, the Court did not find the present to be a fit case to allow the bail application at this stage. ¶23

Dayal Kumar Udasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

2026:CGHC:27483

¶3

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 5881 of 2026

¶6

NAFR

¶7

Dayal Kumar Udasi S/o Late Bhai Aasandas Udasi Aged About 41 Years R/o In Fornt Of Narwani Vakil House, Gali No. 03, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

ORDER ON BOARD

¶15

03/07/2026

¶16

Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 133/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 22(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶17

Case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.03.2026 on the basis of secret information, police station Kotwali Raipur reached the spot and upon inspection found 1100 nos. of Alprazolam Tablet weighing 132 gram from possession of co-accused Kayamuddin and on his memorandum statement applicant was intercepted, during search, police seized 600 nos. of Alprazolam tablet weighing 72 gram from possession of applicant. Based on

¶18

2 / 2

¶19

the seizure aforesaid crime was registered and applicant was arrested on same day.

¶20

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has not committed any offence as alleged. Applicant has been made accused only on the memorandum statement of co-accused Kayamuddin. He submits that seizure has been shown from present applicant of 72 gram of Alprazolam Tablet. He contended that according to the notification issued under clauses vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act, commercial quantity of Alprazolam Tablet is mentioned as 100 gram and above, whereas seizure which is shown from applicant is only 72 gram. Applicant is in jail since 21.03.2026 and therefore he may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that when on the basis of secret information police reached on the spot, co-accused Kayamuddin was found selling Alprazolam Tablet and upon inspection he named present applicant and when applicant is searched 600 numbers of Alprazolam Tablets has been seized from his exclusive possession. He also pointed out that there is one criminal antecedent against applicant of similar nature of the year 2019.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, and further that applicant has been earlier involved in the similar nature of offence, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this application at this stage.

¶24

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed .

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶27

pwn

Dayal Kumar Udasi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayal Kumar Udasi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Giri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Khande @ Ajju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sakha Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Son Sai Vs Smt. Chandan Sanjay Tripathi

Urmila Vs State of Chhattisgarh