CHANDRA KISHOR KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 312/2026

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(C),25,29. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSU010020812026

Filing Number

2020/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

312/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

32

Police Station

Bhaptiyahi

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(C),25,29

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRA KISHOR KUMAR

    Adv. KRIPA NAND PODDAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Chandra Kishor Kumar, who was accused under the NDPS Act of receiving 328 liters of Codeine cough syrup (far exceeding commercial quantity) from arrested co-accused. The court found the allegations serious, noted strong connivance between the accused and arrested conspirators based on confessional statements, and determined that custodial interrogation was necessary and evidence tampering could not be ruled out at this investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Session Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 312/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Chandra Kishor Kumar, who was accused under the NDPS Act of receiving 328 liters of Codeine cough syrup (far exceeding commercial quantity) from arrested co-accused. The court found the allegations serious, noted strong connivance between the accused and arrested conspirators based on confessional statements, and determined that custodial interrogation was necessary and evidence tampering could not be ruled out at this investigation stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case