PRADEEP KUMAR DAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — CRA/612/2018

Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010135122018

Filing Number

CRA/6701/2018

Filing Date

20-Apr-2018

Registration No

CRA/612/2018

Registration Date

23-Apr-2018

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

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRADEEP KUMAR DAS

    Adv. C.R.Sahu,A.D.KULDEEP,A.D.KULDEEP, ,A.D.KULDEEP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar VermaView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed Pradeep Kumar Das's conviction under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possession of 4.5 kg of ganja, finding the prosecution had proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt with proper evidence and chain of custody. However, the court partially allowed his appeal by reducing the sentence from 1 year 6 months to the period already undergone (approximately 1 year 3 months in custody), considering his substantial incarceration, the non-commercial quantity involved, good conduct on bail, and the prolonged pendency of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Apr-2018

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam BhaduriView PDF

  4. 26-Apr-2018

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

  5. 20-Apr-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/612/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed Pradeep Kumar Das's conviction under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possession of 4.5 kg of ganja, finding the prosecution had proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt with proper evidence and chain of custody. However, the court partially allowed his appeal by reducing the sentence from 1 year 6 months to the period already undergone (approximately 1 year 3 months in custody), considering his substantial incarceration, the non-commercial quantity involved, good conduct on bail, and the prolonged pendency of 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