State Of U.P vs dinesh kumar — 49/2026

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8/20/29/25. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc. Cases

CNR: UPMP010005962026

Filing Number

558/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

49/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

498

Police Station

KARHAL

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8/20/29/25
Excise (Amendment )Act Section 60(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Of U.P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.dinesh kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    The court rejected the state's petition to confiscate a truck (RJ11GD0152) seized with 120 kg of cannabis on December 23, 2024. The court found that vehicle owner Dinesh Kumar was not prima facie involved in the offense and his mere ownership of a commercial transport vehicle used by a driver did not justify confiscation under NDPS Act Section 60(3), as there was no evidence of his complicity in the crime. The petition for vehicle confiscation was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ I

  4. 03-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  9. 09-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 49/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the state's petition to confiscate a truck (RJ11GD0152) seized with 120 kg of cannabis on December 23, 2024. The court found that vehicle owner Dinesh Kumar was not prima facie involved in the offense and his mere ownership of a commercial transport vehicle used by a driver did not justify confiscation under NDPS Act Section 60(3), as there was no evidence of his complicity in the crime. The petition for vehicle confiscation was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case