Manish Kumar Alias Manish Rawani Alias Mangra Kamkar Alias Manish Chandrwanshi vs State of Bihar — 96/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRBU100015022026

e-Filing Number

24-02-2026

Filing Number

1315/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

96/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Buxar

Judge

4-Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge II

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

52

Police Station

MURAR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manish Kumar Alias Manish Rawani Alias Mangra Kamkar Alias Manish Chandrwanshi

    Adv. Hari Shankar Prasad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The court rejected the regular bail application of Manish Kumar in a case involving charges under BNS Section 309(4) and Arms Act Sections 25(1-B), 26, 35 for alleged dacoity/robbery of laptops from a mobile shop. The court found that the applicant had a significant criminal history with multiple prior cases and that sufficient evidence existed connecting him to the serious offense, warranting his continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge II

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge II

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge II

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge II

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 96/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the regular bail application of Manish Kumar in a case involving charges under BNS Section 309(4) and Arms Act Sections 25(1-B), 26, 35 for alleged dacoity/robbery of laptops from a mobile shop. The court found that the applicant had a significant criminal history with multiple prior cases and that sufficient evidence existed connecting him to the serious offense, warranting his continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case