Jagmal vs state — 164/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJMR070003992026

Filing Number

255/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

164/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

ADJ Nagaur Taluka HQ

Judge

1-Additional DistrictSession judge No.1 nagaur

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

9

Police Station

Kuchera

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jagmal

    Adv. SH. MHAVEER VISHNOI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.state

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Jagmal v. State (164/2026) The court rejected Jagmal's bail application in an NDPS Act case involving alleged possession of 11.02 grams of MDMA with intent to distribute. The court found that investigation had already established prima facie charges under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, and distinguished Jagmal's situation from co-accused who had obtained bail, noting that unlike them, Jagmal was specifically accused of *selling* the drug to the primary accused rather than merely purchasing for personal use. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional DistrictSession judge No.1 nagaur

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    Additional DistrictSession judge No.1 nagaur

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    Additional DistrictSession judge No.1 nagaur

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 164/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Jagmal v. State (164/2026) The court rejected Jagmal's bail application in an NDPS Act case involving alleged possession of 11.02 grams of MDMA with intent to distribute. The court found that investigation had already established prima facie charges under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, and distinguished Jagmal's situation from co-accused who had obtained bail, noting that unlike them, Jagmal was specifically accused of *selling* the drug to the primary accused rather than merely purchasing for personal use. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case