Tinu Kuwar vs State of Bihar — 41/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),115(2),126(2),351(2),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 11th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRBU100002302026
e-Filing Number
08-01-2026
Filing Number
185/2026
Filing Date
08-Jan-2026
Registration No
41/2026
Registration Date
08-Jan-2026
Court
DJ Div. Buxar
Judge
1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 04-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
140
Police Station
BRAHMPUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Tinu Kuwar
Adv. Bijay Pratap Ojha
-
2.Subodh Kuwar
Adv. Bijay Pratap Ojha
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
Summary The Sessions Judge, Buxar rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Tinu Kuwar and Subodh Kuwar filed in connection with Case No. 140/2025 registered under BNS 2023. The court found that the petitioners concealed their criminal antecedent by claiming no/unknown criminal history, when case diary records showed both had 3 prior criminal cases, and rejected the petition on this ground without examining the merits, citing Supreme Court precedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 41/2026
Summary The Sessions Judge, Buxar rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Tinu Kuwar and Subodh Kuwar filed in connection with Case No. 140/2025 registered under BNS 2023. The court found that the petitioners concealed their criminal antecedent by claiming no/unknown criminal history, when case diary records showed both had 3 prior criminal cases, and rejected the petition on this ground without examining the merits, citing Supreme Court precedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts