SUCHIT YADAV vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL — A.B.A./2302/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 18,27(a),28,29,30,NDPS,ACT,33,IF,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010128032026
Filing Number
A.B.A./8278/2026
Filing Date
16-Apr-2026
Registration No
A.B.A./2302/2026
Registration Date
27-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
DRUGS & MEDICINES ( 125 )
Sub-Category
Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUCHIT YADAV
Adv. ABHAY KR CHATURVEDY,RAJESH KR SINGH,RAJESH KR SINGH, ,ASHISH KUMAR SINHA,ARPANA PRIYADARSHINI,HADISH ANSARI,RAJESH KR SINGH
-
2.MUKESH ORAON
-
3.BIRENDRA KUMAR YADAV
-
4.LALU YADAV ALIAS LALU KUMAR
-
5.BALRAM YADAV ALIAS BALRAM KUMAR YADAV
-
6.KRISHNA YADAV
-
7.AJAY YADAV ALIAS AJAY KUMAR YADAV
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar DwivediView PDF
The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to seven petitioners accused of poppy cultivation on forest land under NDPS Act sections and Indian Forest Act. The court found that the informant's identity was undisclosed in the FIR, the land belonged to the Forest Department (not petitioners), and co-accused had already received similar bail, warranting relief to these petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
-
16-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. A.B.A./2302/2026
The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to seven petitioners accused of poppy cultivation on forest land under NDPS Act sections and Indian Forest Act. The court found that the informant's identity was undisclosed in the FIR, the land belonged to the Forest Department (not petitioners), and co-accused had already received similar bail, warranting relief to these petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts