NIKHIL KUMAR vs THE STATE OF BIHAR — 172/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 108,61(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRBE010007522026

e-Filing Number

20-01-2026

Filing Number

697/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

172/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Court

DJ Div. Begusarai

Judge

4-District and Addl. Session Judge-III

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

163

Police Station

MATIHANI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 108,61(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIKHIL KUMAR

    Adv. BALRAM SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The court rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Nikhil Kumar under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged abduction and subsequent suicide of a girl. Although the mobile number used to contact the deceased was not definitively linked to the petitioner, the court found his name prominently featured among the accused abductors and deemed custodial interrogation necessary, making anticipatory bail imprudent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Session Judge-III

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Session Judge-III

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Session Judge-III

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Session Judge-III

  7. 09-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 29-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  9. 24-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 172/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Nikhil Kumar under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged abduction and subsequent suicide of a girl. Although the mobile number used to contact the deceased was not definitively linked to the petitioner, the court found his name prominently featured among the accused abductors and deemed custodial interrogation necessary, making anticipatory bail imprudent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case