DEEPAK TOMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/3169/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010133042026

Filing Number

MCRC/5634/2026

Filing Date

01-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCRC/3169/2026

Registration Date

06-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

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEEPAK TOMAR

    Adv. Pragalbha Sharma,KSHITIJ SHARMA,KSHITIJ SHARMA, ,LAXMI GUPTA,LAXMI GUPTA,LAXMI GUPTA,RUCHI NAGAR,KSHITIJ SHARMA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Deepak Tomar, arrested for possessing 14.614 kg of Ganja under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Although he had prior criminal antecedents under IPC, the court found him entitled to bail because he had no NDPS-related criminal history, the chargesheet was filed, and he had been in jail since February 2026 with trial likely to take considerable time. The court imposed strict conditions including personal bond with two sureties, mandatory court attendance, and a directive to conclude trial within six months. 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. 07-Apr-2026

    For Orders [On Office Notes]

    Additional Registrar(j)

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/3169/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to Deepak Tomar, arrested for possessing 14.614 kg of Ganja under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Although he had prior criminal antecedents under IPC, the court found him entitled to bail because he had no NDPS-related criminal history, the chargesheet was filed, and he had been in jail since February 2026 with trial likely to take considerable time. The court imposed strict conditions including personal bond with two sureties, mandatory court attendance, and a directive to conclude trial within six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case