PANKAJ KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 188/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition No. - Bail Petition

CNR: BRDA010017762026

Filing Number

1644/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

188/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Darbhanga

Judge

2-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

245

Police Station

LAHERIA SARAI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PANKAJ KUMAR

    Adv. MUKESH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    Summary: The District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Darbhanga rejected the bail application of 19-year-old Pankaj Kumar, accused of assaulting a child in an observation home who subsequently died. The court found that the inquest report documented violence-related injuries, witnesses supported the prosecution case, and the accused allegedly tampered with CCTV evidence, warranting continued judicial custody based on the gravity of allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 188/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Darbhanga rejected the bail application of 19-year-old Pankaj Kumar, accused of assaulting a child in an observation home who subsequently died. The court found that the inquest report documented violence-related injuries, witnesses supported the prosecution case, and the accused allegedly tampered with CCTV evidence, warranting continued judicial custody based on the gravity of allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case