Sintu Kumar vs State of Bihar — 463/2026
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(C),21(C),25,29. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.
Regular Bail - BP
CNR: BRPA010032952026
Filing Number
2860/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
463/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Patna Sadar
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
46
Police Station
Ram Krishana Nagar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sintu Kumar
Adv. Ankit Vikas
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case 463/2026 - Summary Court Decision: The Special Judge (NDPS), Patna rejected Sintu Kumar's bail application on 18.03.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found the allegations serious, noting that 10,270 bottles (1,027 litres) of Codeine-based cough syrup—constituting a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act—were recovered from the petitioner's possession. The court considered the severity of potential punishment, ongoing investigation status, and pending chargesheet, determining bail was not warranted in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 463/2026
Case 463/2026 - Summary Court Decision: The Special Judge (NDPS), Patna rejected Sintu Kumar's bail application on 18.03.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found the allegations serious, noting that 10,270 bottles (1,027 litres) of Codeine-based cough syrup—constituting a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act—were recovered from the petitioner's possession. The court considered the severity of potential punishment, ongoing investigation status, and pending chargesheet, determining bail was not warranted in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts