STATE vs RAJ KUMAR PAL — 676/2026

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 Section 20,29,61,85. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Matters

CNR: DLSE010029962026

Filing Number

1479/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

676/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket

Judge

9-Additional Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

407

Police Station

Jaitpur

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 Section 20,29,61,85

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJ KUMAR PAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    Case 676/2026 Summary: The court dismissed Raj Kumar Pal's second regular bail application in an NDPS Act case involving recovery of 32.2 kg of ganja. The court found no change in circumstances from the first rejected application and rejected the parity argument based on co-accused Shamshad's bail, noting Pal's distinct role in drug supply operations. Section 37 NDPS Act embargo applied due to commercial quantity recovery, and with charges yet to be framed, continued detention was warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Sessions Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 676/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 676/2026 Summary: The court dismissed Raj Kumar Pal's second regular bail application in an NDPS Act case involving recovery of 32.2 kg of ganja. The court found no change in circumstances from the first rejected application and rejected the parity argument based on co-accused Shamshad's bail, noting Pal's distinct role in drug supply operations. Section 37 NDPS Act embargo applied due to commercial quantity recovery, and with charges yet to be framed, continued detention was warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case