SHIV KUMAR MUKHIYA vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 1731/2025
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8(C),21(D). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 07th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010107372025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10242/2025
Filing Date
05-12-2025
Registration No
1731/2025
Registration Date
05-12-2025
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
51
Police Station
BHIMNAGAR
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHIV KUMAR MUKHIYA
Adv. PANKAJ KUMAR DAS
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 01-04-2026 | HEARING | |
| 28-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 19-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Shiv Kumar Mukhiya in an NDPS Act case. The court found strong evidence linking the petitioner to illicit drug trafficking, as co-accused Lalan Mallah confessed that 51.890 grams of Brown Sugar recovered from him was sourced from the petitioner and intended for distribution. The court deemed the allegations serious, investigation ongoing, custodial interrogation necessary, and rejected bail citing risk of evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Shiv Kumar Mukhiya in an NDPS Act case. The court found strong evidence linking the petitioner to illicit drug trafficking, as co-accused Lalan Mallah confessed that 51.890 grams of Brown Sugar recovered from him was sourced from the petitioner and intended for distribution. The court deemed the allegations serious, investigation ongoing, custodial interrogation necessary, and rejected bail citing risk of evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts