Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Vasu Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                             1




                                                                                   2026:CGHC:8119
                                                                                            NAFR


                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                MCRC No. 1581 of 2026

                      Vasu Singh S/o Late Shivlal Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No.10,
                      Durga Chowk, Shankar Nagar Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
                                                                                        ... Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.02.19
17:14:10 +0530




                                                          versus
                      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
                      Padmanabhpur, District - Durg Chhattisgarh                  ... Non-applicant

                      For Applicant                : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate.

                      For Non-applicant            : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

                                       Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

                                                    Order on Board


                      13.02.2026


                         1.

This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 326/2025 registered at Police Station - Padmanabhpur District - Durg Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 08, 22(ग), 27(क), 29 of NDPS Act and Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 111 of the BNS, 2023.

2

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of secret information received by the ASI of Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg, regarding possession of contraband substances by co- accused Vaibhav Khandelwal at his residence, the police conducted a raid and seized a large quantity of psychotropic substances, including Alprazolam tablets (1960 tablets weighing 235.2 grams, 1200 tablets weighing 144 grams, and 10,600 tablets), Nitrazepam tablets (1620 tablets weighing 14.4 grams and 1100 tablets weighing 132 grams), Tramadol tablets (888 tablets weighing 532.8 grams) and 12 bottles of Codeine syrup, and thereafter arrested the co-accused and registered FIR bearing Crime No. 508/2025. During investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused Vaibhav Khandelwal, several other persons, including the present applicant, were implicated in the offence, and on 21.09.2025, allegedly 10 Alprazolam 0.5 mg tablets were recovered from the possession of the present applicant, pursuant to which he was arrested on the same day. Since then, the applicant has remained in judicial custody, and it is submitted that till date no charge-sheet/final report has been filed by the concerned police before the learned Trial Court in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that only 10 Alprazolam 0.5 mg tablets, amounting to a very small quantity, were allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, which falls within the category of small quantity, whereas the commercial quantity for Alprazolam is much higher. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.09.2025 for the alleged possession of such small quantity, and till date the 3 investigation is not complete and the charge-sheet has not been filed. It is further submitted that the applicant is a 21-year-old youth with no criminal antecedents and has been implicated for the first time; he belongs to a poor family and is the sole breadwinner, and his prolonged incarceration is causing severe financial and emotional hardship to his dependent family members. The applicant is a permanent resident of the local area with strong social roots, and there is no likelihood of his absconding, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and seized a large commercial quantity of psychotropic substances from the co- accused, and on the basis of his memorandum statement, the present applicant was implicated, from whose possession 10 Alprazolam tablets were also recovered. It is submitted that the allegations are serious in nature, the seized contraband includes commercial quantity, and the investigation is still ongoing. It is further submitted that the bail application of one of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court; therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the fact that a large quantity of psychotropic substances, including Alprazolam tablets, Nitrazepam tablets, 4 Tramadol tablets and Codeine syrup, has been seized from the applicant along with the co-accused, which far exceeds the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, and further taking note that the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court, as well as the failure of the applicant to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the contraband alleged to have been seized from him, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the recovery of such a substantial quantity indicates the involvement of the applicant in illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, constituting a serious offence under the NDPS Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Vasu Singh, involved in Crime No. 326/2025 registered at Police Station - Padmanabhpur District - Durg Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 08, 22(ग), 27(क), 29 of NDPS Act and Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 111 of the BNS, 2023, is rejected.

                        -                                      Sd/-
                                                          (Ramesh Sinha)
                                                           Chief Justice


Vaibhav