The state Rep. by PSI, Udupi CEN Police Station vs Bhavan Shankar Advocate - AROOR SUKESH SHETTY — 47/2023
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 8(c),20(b)(ii)B,27(b). Status: FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.
Spl.C - SPECIAL CASES
CNR: KAUP010013952023
Next Hearing
28th March 2026
Filing Number
47/2023
Filing Date
21-07-2023
Registration No
47/2023
Registration Date
21-07-2023
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The state Rep. by PSI, Udupi CEN Police Station
Adv. P.P. Udupi.
Respondent(s)
Bhavan Shankar Advocate - AROOR SUKESH SHETTY
Nithesh
Adv. Clinton Dsilva
Hearing History
Judge: 507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 09-01-2026 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 10-12-2025 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 12-08-2025 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
| 22-04-2025 | FRAMING OF CHARGE OR PLEA |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY Bail Granted. Accused No.2 (Nithish) was charged under NDPS Act sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) for alleged drug trafficking and granted regular bail on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount. The court found that since investigation was concluded and the charge sheet filed, continued detention served no purpose, and the accused's permanent residence, family responsibilities, and undertaking to comply with bail conditions made the risk of absconding remote. Stringent conditions were imposed including mandatory court attendance, prohibition on evidence tampering/witness intimidation, and cooperation with the investigating officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY Bail Granted. Accused No.2 (Nithish) was charged under NDPS Act sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) for alleged drug trafficking and granted regular bail on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount. The court found that since investigation was concluded and the charge sheet filed, continued detention served no purpose, and the accused's permanent residence, family responsibilities, and undertaking to comply with bail conditions made the risk of absconding remote. Stringent conditions were imposed including mandatory court attendance, prohibition on evidence tampering/witness intimidation, and cooperation with the investigating officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts