Dismissed

Kaushal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/8224/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the second bail application of an applicant accused under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of ganja. The Court found no substantial change in circumstances regarding the material witnesses despite hostility of prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application is rejected; no bail granted.

Kaushal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010333032026

2026:CGHC:40228

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 8224 of 2026

¶7

Kaushal Singh S/o Chetan Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Khamhariya Police Station Smriti Nagar Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.). ... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali, Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

15/09/2026

¶14

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

¶15

The applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3816 of 2026.

¶16

The prosecution case, in brief, is that 193.33 kg of Ganja, was intercepted while being transported in two vehicles, namely Innova bearing No. HP-20-TA-1544 and Bolero bearing No. MP-20-ZT-4766.

¶17

¶18

The applicant is alleged to be involved in the transportation of the contraband.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant was neither apprehended at the spot nor was any contraband recovered from his personal possession. The vehicles do not belong to him and there is no document connecting him with their ownership or control. He would further submit that his implication is based upon the memorandum statement of co-accused Mithun Jhariya, which is inadmissible in law. He would contend that the applicant is in custody since 23.08.2025, has no criminal antecedents, and out of 17 prosecution witnesses only PW-1 and PW-2 have been examined, both of whom have turned hostile; thus, he would pray to allow this bail application.

¶20

Learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the seized contraband is more than commercial quantity and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. He would further submit that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on 27.04.2026 and there is no substantial change in circumstances. The official witnesses and investigating/seizing officers are yet to be examined and the trial is progressing.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the alleged recovery is of 193.33 kg of Ganja , which is more than commercial quantity, thus the statutory restrictions contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are attracted. At this stage, the Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶23

¶24

The applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits on 27.04.2026. The material relied upon in the present application, i.e. the detention period and the fact that PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile, does not, at this stage, constitute material change in circumstances. The prosecution evidence is still underway and material witnesses, including the official witnesses, are yet to be examined. The effect of their evidence, as well as the other material collected during investigation, cannot appropriately be assessed by conducting a mini-trial at the stage of bail. With regard to medical grievance raised by the applicant that can be attended to by the jail authorities in accordance with law.

¶25

Taking into consideration the commercial quantity involved, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the first bail application on merits, this Court finds no sufficient ground to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the present second bail application is hereby rejected .

¶26

10.However, considering that the applicant is in custody and the trial has commenced, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments, subject to the cooperation of both sides and the availability of the witnesses. Sd/-

¶27

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Nadim

Kaushal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases