balram urf balla vs State Of U.P — 362/2026

Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8/20. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMP010006262026

Filing Number

586/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

362/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8/20

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.balram urf balla

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of U.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    SUMMARY: The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, rejected the bail application of Balram alias Balla under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The court found that 530 grams of charas (hashish) was recovered from the applicant's possession, which exceeds the small quantity threshold, and noted his criminal history and the serious nature of the offense. The court dismissed the applicant's arguments challenging the credibility of the FIR and held that sufficient grounds existed to deny bail based on the quantity of contraband seized, the gravity of the offense, and the applicant's prior criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ I

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ I

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 362/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, rejected the bail application of Balram alias Balla under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The court found that 530 grams of charas (hashish) was recovered from the applicant's possession, which exceeds the small quantity threshold, and noted his criminal history and the serious nature of the offense. The court dismissed the applicant's arguments challenging the credibility of the FIR and held that sufficient grounds existed to deny bail based on the quantity of contraband seized, the gravity of the offense, and the applicant's prior criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case