IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. ____ /2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10667/2026)
VED PRAKASH TIWARI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent
[NyayVidhan note: paragraphs 1-8 carry the Court's numbers. The appeal number is left blank in the signed order (shown here as ____); the Supreme Court's Latest Orders listing gives it as Crl.A. No. 4976/2026. The record of proceedings of 16.10.2026, which follows the signed order, is given in abridged form, with the list of counsel on one line and without its own paragraph numbers; the digital-signature block, Registry signatures, page footers and page numbers are left out. The order's own spellings are kept as printed (for example, "Pyschotropic" in paragraph 3 and "motorcyle" in paragraph 5).]
[Source: Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 16.10.2026.]
O R D E R
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Appellant who has been arraigned as an accused in FIR No.56/2025 registered at Police Station Chhawni, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Pyschotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) is seeking for being enlarged on bail.
4. On 01.02.2025 the jurisdictional police received a secret information that appellant along with other persons selling narcotics tablets near Baikunthdha, Podium using a Pulsar motorcycle. The police accordingly, conducted a raid and recovered four boxes containing 8 strips each of Alprazolam tablet, total 1200 tablets from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution alleges that the contraband was recovered from his possession constituted commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that vehicle was seized by the police in connection with Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Chhawni Police Station, the appellant being the registered owner of the seized motorcyle. It is contended that the mandatory procedural safeguards contemplated under Section 42 and 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with during search and seizure. It is also contended that no independent witnesses were associated during the recovery from a public place rendering the prosecution case doubtful. Hence, appellant seeks for being enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submit that contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the appellant and, as such, he is not entitled for the discretionary relief at the hands of this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that appellant has no criminal antecedents and chargesheet has been filed and trial is in progress. Hence, we are of the considered view that appellant is entitled to be released on bail. The fact that the appellant is in custody from 01.02.2025 would also persuade us to grant the prayer sought for. Hence, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and appellant is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Court deems fit to impose.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
…….………………………………….J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
New Delhi;
October 16, 2026.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10667/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-10-2025 in MCRC No. 8399/2025 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur]
VED PRAKASH TIWARI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
IA No. 154392/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 16-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Mr. Kisalaya Shukla- 3695, AOR Ms. Shruti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Jyotsans Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Kashish Jaiswal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Shashi Kant, Adv. Mr. Avinash Singh, Adv. Mr. Salimuddin, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh- 3583, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER: Heard. Leave granted. The criminal appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Ved Prakash Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh
The text below is reproduced from the judgment for reference. The article summarises the Court's decision; refer to the original judgment for the authoritative text.