RAGHVENDRA SHRIVASTAVA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/2896/2026

Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010106572026

Filing Number

MCRC/4554/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/2896/2026

Registration Date

25-Mar-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

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAGHVENDRA SHRIVASTAVA

    Adv. VIVEKANAND SAMADDAR,DR. ARHAM SIDDIQUI,DR. ARHAM SIDDIQUI, ,HEMANT TOLANI,HEMANT TOLANI,NITESH SAHU,MUKESH RATHIYA,DR. ARHAM SIDDIQUI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Raghvendra Shrivastava's third bail application in a narcotics case involving 28.5 kg of cannabis seized during a police raid. The court held that the applicant's argument about prolonged incarceration and hostile witnesses could not constitute valid grounds for bail, especially after two previous bail applications had already been rejected on merits, and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/2896/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected Raghvendra Shrivastava's third bail application in a narcotics case involving 28.5 kg of cannabis seized during a police raid. The court held that the applicant's argument about prolonged incarceration and hostile witnesses could not constitute valid grounds for bail, especially after two previous bail applications had already been rejected on merits, and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case