ARJUN KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Advocate - PRASHANT PALLAV — B.A./5234/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 8(c),20(b)(ii)(C),25,29,NDPS,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 16th June 2026.
CNR: JHHC010178182026
Filing Number
B.A./11506/2026
Filing Date
25-May-2026
Registration No
B.A./5234/2026
Registration Date
09-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
DRUGS & MEDICINES ( 125 )
Sub-Category
Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ARJUN KUMAR
Adv. ALTAMASH KHAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Advocate - PRASHANT PALLAV
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
The Jharkhand High Court rejected Arjun Kumar's bail petition in an NDPS case involving allegations of transporting 250 kg of ganja (cannabis) in commercial quantity. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that the serious nature of the charges, prosecution evidence from four witnesses identifying the petitioner as the truck driver, and risk of absconding made this an unfit case for bail at that stage, despite the petitioner's claim that the co-accused truck owner was granted bail without being named in witness depositions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Jun-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
-
12-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./5234/2026
The Jharkhand High Court rejected Arjun Kumar's bail petition in an NDPS case involving allegations of transporting 250 kg of ganja (cannabis) in commercial quantity. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that the serious nature of the charges, prosecution evidence from four witnesses identifying the petitioner as the truck driver, and risk of absconding made this an unfit case for bail at that stage, despite the petitioner's claim that the co-accused truck owner was granted bail without being named in witness depositions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts