UMAKANT KOSALE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRA /410/2019

Case under Sec. 383 C.r.p.c - Jail Appeal Section 374(2). Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.

CNR: CGHC010080262019

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CRA /3425/2019

Filing Date

01-03-2019

Registration No

CRA /410/2019

Registration Date

05-03-2019

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS RELATING TO DRUGS & COSMETICS, NDPS ACT. ( 1416 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

SEC. 383 C.R.P.C - JAIL APPEAL Section 374(2)

Petitioner(s)

UMAKANT KOSALE

Adv. NIRUPAMA BAJPAI,Shashank Upadhyay,Shashank Upadhyay, ,SHRWAN KUMAR CHANDEL,Shashank Upadhyay

Respondent(s)

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

08-03-2019

FRESH MATTERS

29-03-2019

FRESH MATTERS

Orders

01-04-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the conviction of Umakant Kosale under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possessing 6 kg of marijuana, finding the prosecution's evidence reliable and NDPS procedural safeguards substantially complied with. However, the court reduced his 5-year sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 3 years 10 months) considering his young age, clean record, long incarceration period, and 11 years elapsed since the 2015 incident, while maintaining the Rs. 10,000 fine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the conviction of Umakant Kosale under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possessing 6 kg of marijuana, finding the prosecution's evidence reliable and NDPS procedural safeguards substantially complied with. However, the court reduced his 5-year sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 3 years 10 months) considering his young age, clean record, long incarceration period, and 11 years elapsed since the 2015 incident, while maintaining the Rs. 10,000 fine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case