Harsh Kumar vs State of Bihar — 188/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECT on 12th March 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRAU010018862026
e-Filing Number
11-02-2026
Filing Number
1720/2026
Filing Date
11-02-2026
Registration No
188/2026
Registration Date
11-02-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
461
Police Station
AURANGABAD MUFASSIL
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Harsh Kumar
Adv. Krishna Pratap
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 18-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Court in Aurangabad, Bihar rejected the bail application of Harsh Kumar (26), who was accused of kidnapping a minor girl (aged 16 years 11 months). The court found substantial evidence of the alleged crime, including 239 phone calls between the accused and the victim, continuous conversations on the night before the incident, and the victim's statement confirming she traveled to Kolkata with the accused. Despite the defense arguing it was a consensual relationship, the court held that the victim's minor status under parental guardianship constituted kidnapping under serious charges, and the ongoing investigation necessitated continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Court in Aurangabad, Bihar rejected the bail application of Harsh Kumar (26), who was accused of kidnapping a minor girl (aged 16 years 11 months). The court found substantial evidence of the alleged crime, including 239 phone calls between the accused and the victim, continuous conversations on the night before the incident, and the victim's statement confirming she traveled to Kolkata with the accused. Despite the defense arguing it was a consensual relationship, the court held that the victim's minor status under parental guardianship constituted kidnapping under serious charges, and the ongoing investigation necessitated continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts