Radhey Kumar vs State of Bihar — 870/2026

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(b),29,8A(C). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail - ABP

CNR: BRPA010040442026

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

3521/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

870/2026

Registration Date

26-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

76

Police Station

CITY CHOWK

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(b),29,8A(C)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Radhey Kumar

    Adv. Ram kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Order

    The Special Judge (NDPS), Patna rejected Radhe Kumar's anticipatory bail application in a drug trafficking case. The court found that 51 grams of smack recovered from co-accused persons exceeded the "small quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act, with co-accused disclosing the drugs belonged to the petitioner, and that ongoing investigation and pending chargesheet warranted denial of bail despite the petitioner's claims of innocence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 870/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Special Judge (NDPS), Patna rejected Radhe Kumar's anticipatory bail application in a drug trafficking case. The court found that 51 grams of smack recovered from co-accused persons exceeded the "small quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act, with co-accused disclosing the drugs belonged to the petitioner, and that ongoing investigation and pending chargesheet warranted denial of bail despite the petitioner's claims of innocence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case