Chhotu Alias Rahul Kumar vs State of Bihar — 589/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010030542026
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
11-03-2026
Filing Number
2797/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
589/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
FIR Details
FIR Number
05
Police Station
AURANGABAD TOWN
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chhotu Alias Rahul Kumar
Adv. Ashok kumar gupta
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
Restored
Disposed
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 24-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 24-04-2026 | Restored |
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the 14-year-old accused petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, valid from 24.04.2026 to 30.04.2026, with directions to surrender on 01.05.2026 for merit hearing. The court found the victim was 34 years old and the accused a juvenile, noting the victim's own statement that nothing occurred and a compromise petition was filed; additionally, the court directed the police to register an FIR under POCSO Act provisions, observing that if a major victim consented to physical relations with a minor, the victim herself may have committed an offense under POCSO. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the 14-year-old accused petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, valid from 24.04.2026 to 30.04.2026, with directions to surrender on 01.05.2026 for merit hearing. The court found the victim was 34 years old and the accused a juvenile, noting the victim's own statement that nothing occurred and a compromise petition was filed; additionally, the court directed the police to register an FIR under POCSO Act provisions, observing that if a major victim consented to physical relations with a minor, the victim herself may have committed an offense under POCSO. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts