AJAY KUMAR SINGH vs State of Bihar — 308/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 316(4),318(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 13th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRBJ010019882026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1405/2026
Filing Date
28-01-2026
Registration No
308/2026
Registration Date
28-01-2026
Court
Bhojpur DJ Division
Judge
1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
43
Police Station
ARRAH NAWADA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AJAY KUMAR SINGH
Adv. ARSHAD MD ZAFAR
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
Disposed
Awaiting for Case Diary
Awaiting for Case Diary
Awaiting for Case Diary
Awaiting for Case Diary
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Awaiting for Case Diary | |
| 27-02-2026 | Awaiting for Case Diary | |
| 19-02-2026 | Awaiting for Case Diary | |
| 11-02-2026 | Awaiting for Case Diary |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur dismissed Ajay Kumar Singh's anticipatory bail petition, finding prima facie evidence of defalcation of Rs. 69,11,698 in public money. The court determined that Singh, a Data Entry Operator, failed to deposit collected vehicle tax and fees into the Government Treasury on 16 separate occasions between July 2024 and August 2025, as confirmed by the Online Government Receipt Account System (OGRAS) report, and ruled that custodial interrogation was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur dismissed Ajay Kumar Singh's anticipatory bail petition, finding prima facie evidence of defalcation of Rs. 69,11,698 in public money. The court determined that Singh, a Data Entry Operator, failed to deposit collected vehicle tax and fees into the Government Treasury on 16 separate occasions between July 2024 and August 2025, as confirmed by the Online Government Receipt Account System (OGRAS) report, and ruled that custodial interrogation was necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts