Bhupendra Singh Panwar vs State of Bihar — 427/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010022312026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
2043/2026
Filing Date
19-Feb-2026
Registration No
427/2026
Registration Date
19-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
4-District Addl. S J- IV
Decision Date
24-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 18-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
582
Police Station
AURANGABAD TOWN
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Bhupendra Singh Panwar
Adv. Ashutosh Kumar Parhak
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Apr-2026
Bail OrderView PDF
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge IV, Aurangabad rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Bhupendra Singh Panwar, who was accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving Rs. 14.3 crore invested in Tejal Engineer Private Limited. The court found the allegations serious and supported by documentary evidence including bank details showing the investment, and determined that only Rs. 5.3 crore was returned despite contractual obligations to pay monthly profits of Rs. 1,20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Addl. S J- IV
-
17-Apr-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
08-Apr-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
23-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
20-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 427/2026
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge IV, Aurangabad rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Bhupendra Singh Panwar, who was accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving Rs. 14.3 crore invested in Tejal Engineer Private Limited. The court found the allegations serious and supported by documentary evidence including bank details showing the investment, and determined that only Rs. 5.3 crore was returned despite contractual obligations to pay monthly profits of Rs. 1,20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts