SRICHAND vs State — 65/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 13th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAJ290002292026
Filing Number
122/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
65/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
ADJ NASIRABAD TALUKA
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Granted
FIR Details
FIR Number
220
Police Station
Nasirabad Sadar
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SRICHAND
Adv. FARUKH KHATRI
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 65/2026 - Srichand v. State Decision: The court GRANTED bail to petitioner Srichand in an NDPS Act case (Sections 8/15, 8/29). The petitioner was arrested following recovery of 10.9 kg of opium powder from a vehicle, but had no direct recovery linked to him and was not involved in the investigation. Key Reasoning: Although the State highlighted the petitioner's prior criminal history (four earlier cases involving assault and NDPS violations), the court found that: (1) no recoverable evidence was seized from the petitioner; (2) investigation is ongoing and trial will take time; and (3) considering the case facts and trial duration, bail was justified. The court imposed conditions: two sureties of ₹25,000 each (one being a close relative) and a personal bond of ₹50,000, with mandatory court appearance at each hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 65/2026 - Srichand v. State Decision: The court GRANTED bail to petitioner Srichand in an NDPS Act case (Sections 8/15, 8/29). The petitioner was arrested following recovery of 10.9 kg of opium powder from a vehicle, but had no direct recovery linked to him and was not involved in the investigation. Key Reasoning: Although the State highlighted the petitioner's prior criminal history (four earlier cases involving assault and NDPS violations), the court found that: (1) no recoverable evidence was seized from the petitioner; (2) investigation is ongoing and trial will take time; and (3) considering the case facts and trial duration, bail was justified. The court imposed conditions: two sureties of ₹25,000 each (one being a close relative) and a personal bond of ₹50,000, with mandatory court appearance at each hearing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts