DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF BIHAR — 302/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),126(2),85. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

A. B. P. - Anticipatory Bail Application

CNR: BRBA010010442026

e-Filing Number

25-02-2026

Filing Number

957/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

302/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Banka

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

2115

Police Station

Complaint Case

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),126(2),85
Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH

    Adv. RAVI SHANKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Contested

    Case 302/2026 Summary The Sessions Judge, Banka dismissed Deepak Kumar Singh's anticipatory bail petition in a dowry-related case, finding it not maintainable. The court noted that Singh repeatedly failed to appear despite court directions, did not pay an imposed cost of Rs. 1,500, and was evading judicial process by issuing only a bailable warrant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 302/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 302/2026 Summary The Sessions Judge, Banka dismissed Deepak Kumar Singh's anticipatory bail petition in a dowry-related case, finding it not maintainable. The court noted that Singh repeatedly failed to appear despite court directions, did not pay an imposed cost of Rs. 1,500, and was evading judicial process by issuing only a bailable warrant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case