FIROJ ALAM vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 314/2026
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8,20(B)(II)(C). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 26th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010021442026
Filing Number
2082/2026
Filing Date
21-Feb-2026
Registration No
314/2026
Registration Date
21-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 28-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
86
Police Station
BIRPUR
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.FIROJ ALAM
Adv. UNKNOWN
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
Case Summary: The Court of Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected Firoz Alam's anticipatory bail application in an NDPS Act case. Alam was allegedly part of a three-person smuggling operation attempting to bring 93 KG of illicit ganja from Nepal into India; co-accused Raushan Kumar Paswan was arrested and confessed to Alam's involvement. The court found the charges serious given the large commercial-quantity seizure, Alam's prior NDPS conviction, and custodial interrogation needs, rendering him ineligible for anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Session Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 314/2026
Case Summary: The Court of Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected Firoz Alam's anticipatory bail application in an NDPS Act case. Alam was allegedly part of a three-person smuggling operation attempting to bring 93 KG of illicit ganja from Nepal into India; co-accused Raushan Kumar Paswan was arrested and confessed to Alam's involvement. The court found the charges serious given the large commercial-quantity seizure, Alam's prior NDPS conviction, and custodial interrogation needs, rendering him ineligible for anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts