MOHD. NIHAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRC/4830/2026

Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010204922026

Filing Number

MCRC/8681/2026

Filing Date

15-May-2026

Registration No

MCRC/4830/2026

Registration Date

18-May-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

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD. NIHAL

    Adv. Bharat Lal Sahu,Ravipal Maheshwari,Ravipal Maheshwari, ,Ravipal Maheshwari

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: MCRC 4830/2026 - Mohd. Nihal v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected Mohd. Nihal's second bail application in a narcotic drugs case (5.265 kg ganja seized under NDPS Act sections 20(B) and 29). The court upheld its earlier rejection, finding that Nihal's prior criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act established him as a habitual offender, distinguishing him from co-accused who had no such records and were granted bail. The parity argument failed as the co-accused's bail grants were premised on their clean NDPS histories. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 15-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRC/4830/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCRC 4830/2026 - Mohd. Nihal v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected Mohd. Nihal's second bail application in a narcotic drugs case (5.265 kg ganja seized under NDPS Act sections 20(B) and 29). The court upheld its earlier rejection, finding that Nihal's prior criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act established him as a habitual offender, distinguishing him from co-accused who had no such records and were granted bail. The parity argument failed as the co-accused's bail grants were premised on their clean NDPS histories. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case