DULDUL MARKAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3263/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010129092026

Filing Number

MCRC/5474/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3263/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-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--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DULDUL MARKAM

    Adv. MANISH NIGAM,SUNDAR LAL SAHU,SUNDAR LAL SAHU, ,SUNDAR LAL SAHU,SUNDAR LAL SAHU

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Duldul Markam, arrested for possessing 6 kg of ganja under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Although the applicant had two prior criminal convictions (2011, 2013), the court found him entitled to bail because he had no previous NDPS Act offences, the chargesheet was filed, and he had been in custody since January 15, 2026. Bail was granted with conditions requiring personal bonds, two sureties, mandatory court attendance, and no adjournments when witnesses are present. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3263/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to Duldul Markam, arrested for possessing 6 kg of ganja under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Although the applicant had two prior criminal convictions (2011, 2013), the court found him entitled to bail because he had no previous NDPS Act offences, the chargesheet was filed, and he had been in custody since January 15, 2026. Bail was granted with conditions requiring personal bonds, two sureties, mandatory court attendance, and no adjournments when witnesses are present. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case