Jitu Sharma vs State of Bihar — 281/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 28th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRAU010029762026

e-Filing Number

10-03-2026

Filing Number

2723/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

281/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Division Aurangabad

Judge

43-District Addl. S J-V

Decision Date

28-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

536

Police Station

RAFIGANJ

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jitu Sharma

    Adv. sant Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Mar-2026

    Bail OrderView PDF

    The court granted bail to accused Jittu Sharma in a case involving charges under IPC sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 329(3), and 3(5), arising from an altercation over land dispute. The court found insufficient evidence of serious injuries—noting the nasal fracture was confirmed but other alleged injuries lacked visible marks—and considered the accused's family background and judicial custody period (since 27.02.2026) while imposing bail conditions including two sureties of ₹25,000 each and cooperation with investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Addl. S J-V

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Addl. S J-V

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Addl. S J-V

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 281/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted bail to accused Jittu Sharma in a case involving charges under IPC sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 329(3), and 3(5), arising from an altercation over land dispute. The court found insufficient evidence of serious injuries—noting the nasal fracture was confirmed but other alleged injuries lacked visible marks—and considered the accused's family background and judicial custody period (since 27.02.2026) while imposing bail conditions including two sureties of ₹25,000 each and cooperation with investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case