RAHUL KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 853/2026

Case under Arms Act Section 25(1-b)A,26. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRBJ010038642026

Filing Number

3116/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

853/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

Bhojpur DJ Division

Judge

1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

4

Police Station

TIYAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Arms Act Section 25(1-b)A,26
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAHUL KUMAR

    Adv. PRAMOD KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge of Bhojpur allowed bail for Rahul Kumar (age 20), who was accused under Arms Act sections based on WhatsApp chats and confessional statements from co-accused Dhanji Sharma. The court found that Kumar was not named in the FIR, no physical evidence was recovered from him, and only circumstantial evidence existed, warranting his release on bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Awaiting for Case Diary

    Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 853/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge of Bhojpur allowed bail for Rahul Kumar (age 20), who was accused under Arms Act sections based on WhatsApp chats and confessional statements from co-accused Dhanji Sharma. The court found that Kumar was not named in the FIR, no physical evidence was recovered from him, and only circumstantial evidence existed, warranting his release on bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case