Allowed

Archana Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/8532/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to two applicants arrested in an NDPS case involving seizure of 12.405 kg of Ganja, which is below the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kg. The court considered that the applicants had no prior criminal record, the charge-sheet had been filed, and trial conclusion would take considerable time. Bail was allowed on execution of personal bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to standard conditions.

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

CGHC010341422026

2026:CGHC:41065

NAFR

NIRMALA RAO

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 8176 of 2026

¶8

1 - Neha Singh D/o Shir Jay Singh Aged About 34 Years W/o Shri Prakash Nayak @ Pappu (As Per Charge Sheet Aged About 34 Years, ) R/o School Para, Ward, No. 10, Koksa, District Janjgir Champa C. G.

¶9

--- Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S H O Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur C. G.

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

MCRC No. 8532 of 2026

¶14

1 - Archana Singh D/o Late Rajkumar Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Bajrangi Para, Champa, Police Station Champa, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

--- Respondent(s) For Applicants : Shri Sunil Sahu and Shri F.S. Khare, Advocates. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Dy. A.G.

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

21.09.2026

Heard.

1. These are the first bail applications filed under under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.894 of 2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶25

1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur received a secret information from the informant and on the said information conducted a raid and seized 12.405 kg of contraband Ganja from the possession of the applicants, thereafter, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicants.

¶26

1. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that from joint possession of three accused persons, 12.405 kg of contraband Ganja was seized on 26.6.2026. They submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They further submits that from the possession of the applicants small quantity of Ganja was seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of Ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 Kgs and from the possession of the applicants 12.405 kg of Ganja was seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 26.6.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to

¶27

¶28

take quite long time. Therefore, they pray for grant of regular bail to the applicants.

¶29

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/nonapplicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the said submission that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. He further submits that from the possession of the applicants contraband article i.e. 12.405 kg of Ganja was seized, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶30

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶31

1. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the contraband article i.e. 12.405 kg of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicants, which is less than commercial quantity. Moreover, the applicants have no criminal antecedents. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in both the cases before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 26.6.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶32

7 ) Accordingly, the bail applications filed by the applicants are allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶33

(i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶34

¶35

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court,

¶36

(ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶37

(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

¶38

(iv) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶39

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicants on the applications for grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound

¶40

by the observations made in the course of this order.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶43

Nimmi

Archana Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana 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