Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Bihar — 361/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECT on 26th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010018892026
e-Filing Number
11-02-2026
Filing Number
1722/2026
Filing Date
11-02-2026
Registration No
361/2026
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
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
7
Police Station
AMBA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Akhilesh Kumar
Adv. Kamlesh Prasad
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 |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 28-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (Bihar), rejected the anticipatory bail application of Akhilesh Kumar in a kidnapping case. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, evidence including CDR records showing a call from his mobile number to the victim and witness statements during investigation supported allegations that he lured and abducted the informant's minor daughter Neha Kumari in what appears to be a love affair case. The court found sufficient material to establish active involvement and denied bail since the investigation was still at an early stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (Bihar), rejected the anticipatory bail application of Akhilesh Kumar in a kidnapping case. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, evidence including CDR records showing a call from his mobile number to the victim and witness statements during investigation supported allegations that he lured and abducted the informant's minor daughter Neha Kumari in what appears to be a love affair case. The court found sufficient material to establish active involvement and denied bail since the investigation was still at an early stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts