DALE SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010277612026 2026:CGHC:46442
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6961 of 2026
Dale Singh S/o Shri Jawan Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Khandar, Police
•
Station Pagarisa, District- Jhalwad (Rajasthan)
--- Applicant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant
MCRC No. 8167 of 2026
• Vishnu Sharma S/o Ramgopal Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Soni
Brahman Mohalla, Thana- Pagariya Distt- Jhalawar (Rajsthan)
--- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
•
Singhoda Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant
MCRC No. 6961 of 2026
For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate
For State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
MCRC No. 8167 of 2026
For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
For State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.11 .2026

2
MCRC No. 6961 of 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. 72/2024 registered at Police
Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
MCRC No. 8167 of 2026
2. 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. 72/2024 registered at Police
Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of NDPS Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station
Singhoda, District Mahasamund received an information from the informant
and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 8 Kg. of
Ganja from joint possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, Police has
registered aforesaid offence against the applicants.
4. In MCRC No. 6961 of 2026, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that intermediate quantity of ganja was seized from the joint
possession of the applicants Dale Singh and Vishnu Sharma. Mr. Shikhar
Sharma submits that applicant has five criminal antecedents, out of which
three cases have already been disposed of and there is no pending case of
similar nature. He would contend that applicant is in jail since 20.06.2024
and trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Thus, he prays for grant of

3
regular bail.
5. In MCRC No. 8167 of 2026, Mr. Sumit Shrivastava submits that the
applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that an intermediate quantity of ganja was seized from the joint
possession of the applicants Dale Singh and Vishnu Sharma. He submits that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents of similar nature and he is in jail
since 20.06.2024. He would submit that trial is likely to take some time to
conclude. Thus, he prays for grant of regular bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail
applications and submits that charge-sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court. She further submits that ten criminal antecedents have
been reported against applicant Dale Singh, whereas he has disclosed only
five of them by filing an additional affidavit. Likewise, five criminal
antecedents have been reported against applicant Vishnu Sharma, but he has
not disclosed any of them, therefore, she submits that applicants are not
entitled for grant of bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case
diary.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicants and fact that ten
criminal antecedents have been reported against applicant Dale Singh,
whereas he has disclosed only five antecedents by filing an additional
affidavit, out of which two cases are still pending consideration and there is
no explanation with regard to remaining five criminal antecedents. Similarly,
five criminal antecedents have been reported against applicant Vishnu

4
Sharma, but he failed to disclose any criminal antecedents.
9. Accordingly, both the bail applications are hereby rejected at this stage.
However, the applicants would be at liberty to file better applications
explaining all their respective criminal antecedents.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant