State vs SATYAVEER Advocate - Anis Mohd. — 2165/2018
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 8,21. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th April 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBD020042572018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4249/2018
Filing Date
28-11-2018
Registration No
2165/2018
Registration Date
28-11-2018
Court
CJM ACJM JM Bundi HQ
Judge
5-CJM
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
89
Police Station
Kotwali,Bundi
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. A.P.O.
Respondent(s)
SATYAVEER Advocate - Anis Mohd.
Hearing History
Judge: 5-CJM
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-04-2026 | Judgment | |
| 04-04-2026 | Judgment | |
| 28-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 19-03-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi acquitted Satyaveer (alias Mithun) of charges under Section 8/27 of the NDPS Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical procedural gaps including absence of independent witnesses, questionable compliance with Section 50 NDPS procedures, inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding timing and evidence handling, and incomplete chain of custody documentation, all of which created sufficient doubt about the legality and integrity of the drug seizure operation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi acquitted Satyaveer (alias Mithun) of charges under Section 8/27 of the NDPS Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical procedural gaps including absence of independent witnesses, questionable compliance with Section 50 NDPS procedures, inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding timing and evidence handling, and incomplete chain of custody documentation, all of which created sufficient doubt about the legality and integrity of the drug seizure operation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts