AYUSH THAKUR(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) — CRMPM/586/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010166852026
Filing Number
CRMPM/2288/2026
Filing Date
30-Mar-2026
Registration No
CRMPM/586/2026
Registration Date
09-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 15-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AYUSH THAKUR(Not Applicable)
Adv. Amrinder Singh Rana,Harmahinder Singh Rana,Harmahinder Singh Rana, ,Harmahinder Singh Rana
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)
Adv. AG 1123
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to Ayush Thakur, a B.Pharmacy student accused of NDPS violations for possessing 105.23 grams of heroin, finding that the intermediate quantity involved does not trigger Section 37's rigorous provisions and that his first-offender status, lack of criminal antecedents, and roots in society outweighed custodial detention needs. The court imposed bail conditions including a ₹1,00,000 bond, attendance at all hearings, and restrictions on movement, while noting the prosecution could seek bail cancellation if violated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
24-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
24-Apr-2026
Orders
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj
-
10-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal BhardwajView PDF
-
10-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRMPM/586/2026
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to Ayush Thakur, a B.Pharmacy student accused of NDPS violations for possessing 105.23 grams of heroin, finding that the intermediate quantity involved does not trigger Section 37's rigorous provisions and that his first-offender status, lack of criminal antecedents, and roots in society outweighed custodial detention needs. The court imposed bail conditions including a ₹1,00,000 bond, attendance at all hearings, and restrictions on movement, while noting the prosecution could seek bail cancellation if violated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts