JITENDRA MANJHI ALIS JITENDRA KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 591/2026

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8,21,25,29. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010036992026

Filing Number

3516/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

591/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

43

Police Station

MAJHAGARH

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8,21,25,29

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JITENDRA MANJHI ALIS JITENDRA KUMAR

    Adv. MUSHTAQUE AZAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Jitendra Kumar (alias Crezy) in an NDPS Act case involving 21.2 grams of smack. Though the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, co-accused persons disclosed that they purchased the narcotic substance from him, and prosecution witnesses corroborated this claim. The court found sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail considering the nature of the offense and ongoing investigation, but permitted the petitioner to seek regular bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Admission

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 591/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Jitendra Kumar (alias Crezy) in an NDPS Act case involving 21.2 grams of smack. Though the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, co-accused persons disclosed that they purchased the narcotic substance from him, and prosecution witnesses corroborated this claim. The court found sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail considering the nature of the offense and ongoing investigation, but permitted the petitioner to seek regular bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case