State vs SATYAVEER URF MITHUN Advocate - Anis Mohd. — 2166/2018

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 8,27. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD020042582018

Filing Number

4250/2018

Filing Date

28-Nov-2018

Registration No

2166/2018

Registration Date

28-Nov-2018

Court

CJM ACJM JM Bundi HQ

Judge

5-CJM

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

43

Police Station

Kotwali,Bundi

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 8,27

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. A.P.O.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SATYAVEER URF MITHUN Advocate - Anis Mohd.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, acquitted Satyaveer alias Mithun under NDPS Act Section 8/27, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical flaws: no actual narcotic drug was recovered (only paraphernalia), absence of independent witnesses, non-compliance with Section 50 procedures, broken chain of custody, and contradictory witness statements about recovered items' location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    CJM

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    CJM

  5. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    CJM

  6. 28-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    CJM

  7. 19-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    CJM

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    CJM

  9. 07-Mar-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    CJM

  10. 21-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  11. 05-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  12. 09-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  13. 16-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  14. 10-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  15. 24-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  16. 17-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  17. 30-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  18. 21-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  19. 12-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  20. 27-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  21. 17-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  22. 18-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  23. 06-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  24. 25-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  25. 21-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  26. 26-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  27. 22-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  28. 26-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  29. 12-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  30. 07-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  31. 16-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  32. 05-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  33. 27-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  34. 21-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  35. 05-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  36. 21-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  37. 17-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  38. 16-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  39. 15-Mar-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  40. 26-Nov-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  41. 12-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  42. 15-Jan-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  43. 18-Aug-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  44. 10-Jun-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  45. 23-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    CJM

  46. 12-Jul-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  47. 06-Feb-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  48. 19-Dec-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    CJM

  49. 04-Dec-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  50. 28-Nov-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2166/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, acquitted Satyaveer alias Mithun under NDPS Act Section 8/27, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical flaws: no actual narcotic drug was recovered (only paraphernalia), absence of independent witnesses, non-compliance with Section 50 procedures, broken chain of custody, and contradictory witness statements about recovered items' location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case