VINOD SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/1620/2026
Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010059742026
Filing Number
MCRC/2555/2026
Filing Date
07-Feb-2026
Registration No
MCRC/1620/2026
Registration Date
12-Feb-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )
Sub-Category
NDPS Act ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
07-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VINOD SINGH
Adv. MANISH NIGAM,SUNDAR LAL SAHU,SUNDAR LAL SAHU, SHUBHANKAR SINGH,SUNDAR LAL SAHU
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected Vinod Singh's third bail application in an NDPS case where 100 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from his possession on 21.12.2023. The court found no substantial change in circumstances since earlier rejections and held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars bail given the commercial quantity seized and applicant's inability to provide satisfactory explanation. The court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
-
08-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
-
19-Feb-2026
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF
-
16-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. MCRC/1620/2026
The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected Vinod Singh's third bail application in an NDPS case where 100 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from his possession on 21.12.2023. The court found no substantial change in circumstances since earlier rejections and held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars bail given the commercial quantity seized and applicant's inability to provide satisfactory explanation. The court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts