STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Rupesh Kumar vs Mithun Kumar — 67/2023
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 18/20/22. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th May 2026.
NDPS. S. CASE
CNR: BRGA010164522023
Filing Number
16446/2023
Filing Date
22-Nov-2023
Registration No
67/2023
Registration Date
22-Nov-2023
Court
Gaya DJ Div.
Judge
4-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 28-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
811
Police Station
BARACHATTY
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Rupesh Kumar
Adv. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mithun Kumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Judgment
Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Mithun Kumar (NDPS Case No. 67/2023) Court Decision: Acquitted Judge: Shashi Kant Ojha, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya Date of Judgment: 08-05-2026 The accused, Mithun Kumar, was charged under Sections 18, 20, and 22 of the NDPS Act based on allegations that he was involved in purchasing and selling opium. The prosecution failed to establish a convincing case against the accused. Critical evidentiary gaps included inconsistencies regarding when the alleged drug (5.250 kg of opium) was seized, inconsistencies in the timing of the FIR, incomplete chain of custody documentation, and the fact that the seized contraband was recovered from a motorcycle not registered in the accused's name. The court found the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
28-Apr-2026
Judgement
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
18-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
16-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
15-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
13-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
10-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
06-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
01-Apr-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
16-Mar-2026
Defence Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
12-Mar-2026
Defence Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
26-Feb-2026
Defence Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
17-Feb-2026
Defence Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
11-Feb-2026
Defence Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
28-Jan-2026
Defence Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
24-Jan-2026
Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
13-Jan-2026
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
03-Jan-2026
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
12-Dec-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
27-Nov-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
18-Nov-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
12-Nov-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
17-Oct-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
13-Oct-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
07-Oct-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
15-Sep-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
19-Aug-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
24-Jul-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
15-Jul-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
30-Jun-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
09-Jun-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
14-May-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
23-Apr-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
22-Mar-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
18-Feb-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
27-Jan-2025
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
23-Dec-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
06-Dec-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
12-Nov-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
08-Oct-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
21-Sep-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
10-Sep-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
22-Aug-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
05-Aug-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
25-Jul-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
13-Jun-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
28-May-2024
Evidence
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
09-May-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
26-Apr-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
09-Apr-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
27-Mar-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
02-Mar-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
08-Feb-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
11-Jan-2024
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
22-Dec-2023
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
07-Dec-2023
Police Paper
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
23-Nov-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 67/2023
Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Mithun Kumar (NDPS Case No. 67/2023) Court Decision: Acquitted Judge: Shashi Kant Ojha, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya Date of Judgment: 08-05-2026 The accused, Mithun Kumar, was charged under Sections 18, 20, and 22 of the NDPS Act based on allegations that he was involved in purchasing and selling opium. The prosecution failed to establish a convincing case against the accused. Critical evidentiary gaps included inconsistencies regarding when the alleged drug (5.250 kg of opium) was seized, inconsistencies in the timing of the FIR, incomplete chain of custody documentation, and the fact that the seized contraband was recovered from a motorcycle not registered in the accused's name. The court found the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts