Pushpendra Sharma vs State of Bihar — 191/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.

Regular Bail

CNR: BRAU010019012026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

11-02-2026

Filing Number

1734/2026

Filing Date

11-02-2026

Registration No

191/2026

Registration Date

11-02-2026

Court

DJ Division Aurangabad

Judge

1-Principal District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

Pushpendra Sharma

Adv. Md Qaiyum ansari

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District And Sessions Judge

13-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

HEARING

06-03-2026

HEARING

26-02-2026

HEARING

19-02-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Bail Order

Summary: The Sessions Judge granted regular bail to Pushpendra Sharma, accused of dowry harassment and cruelty charges under IPC sections 323, 341, 498(A), and 506. The petitioner's previous anticipatory bail was cancelled due to non-compliance with the High Court's direction to pay Rs. 3,000 monthly to the complainant, and he was sent to judicial custody on 02.02.2026. The court allowed bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount each, considering his prolonged custody for non-compliance rather than substantive guilt, and noting his clean criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Judge granted regular bail to Pushpendra Sharma, accused of dowry harassment and cruelty charges under IPC sections 323, 341, 498(A), and 506. The petitioner's previous anticipatory bail was cancelled due to non-compliance with the High Court's direction to pay Rs. 3,000 monthly to the complainant, and he was sent to judicial custody on 02.02.2026. The court allowed bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount each, considering his prolonged custody for non-compliance rather than substantive guilt, and noting his clean criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Division Aurangabad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case