Aadesh Kumar vs State of Bihar — 480/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010025152026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
2299/2026
Filing Date
24-Feb-2026
Registration No
480/2026
Registration Date
24-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
4-District Addl. S J- IV
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
90
Police Station
Narari Kala Khurd
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Aadesh Kumar
Adv. anil kumar chaubey
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
Bail OrderView PDF
Case Summary: Adesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (480/2026) The court rejected Adesh Kumar's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving alleged theft of scrap from NPGCL. CCTV footage showed the petitioner tampering with weighbridge wires to manipulate weight readings, enabling theft of surplus scrap valued at Rs. 6 lakh, causing significant government revenue loss. The court found the allegations serious and determined the petitioner did not deserve bail privilege. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Addl. S J- IV
-
08-Apr-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
01-Apr-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
24-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J- IV
-
25-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 480/2026
Case Summary: Adesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (480/2026) The court rejected Adesh Kumar's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving alleged theft of scrap from NPGCL. CCTV footage showed the petitioner tampering with weighbridge wires to manipulate weight readings, enabling theft of surplus scrap valued at Rs. 6 lakh, causing significant government revenue loss. The court found the allegations serious and determined the petitioner did not deserve bail privilege. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts