JAI KISHORE PRASAD ALIAS CHHOTE JEE vs State of Bihar — 580/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 334(1),303(2),317(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRBJ010032662026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2566/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
580/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Court
Bhojpur DJ Division
Judge
1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
28
Police Station
ARRAH TOWN
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAI KISHORE PRASAD ALIAS CHHOTE JEE
Adv. MANISH SINGH
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
Disposed
Awaiting for Case Diary
Awaiting for Case Diary
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Awaiting for Case Diary | |
| 23-02-2026 | Awaiting for Case Diary |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur granted anticipatory bail to Jai Kishor Prasad @ Chhote Jee in a jewelry theft case, finding the allegations against him to be "general, omnibus, exaggerated, bald and unsubstantiated." The court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI) regarding bail eligibility for offenses punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment, ordering bail on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and conditions requiring his availability for interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur granted anticipatory bail to Jai Kishor Prasad @ Chhote Jee in a jewelry theft case, finding the allegations against him to be "general, omnibus, exaggerated, bald and unsubstantiated." The court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI) regarding bail eligibility for offenses punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment, ordering bail on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and conditions requiring his availability for interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts