DHARMENDRA KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 676/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BREC010046332026

Filing Number

4301/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

676/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

50

Police Station

MOTIHARI MUFFASSIL

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHARMENDRA KUMAR

    Adv. RAM DHANI SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Order By CourtView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition of Dharmendra Kumar, Lakhindra Kumar, and Ramesh Sahani, who are accused of attacking multiple individuals with weapons in a violent mob incident that resulted in one death and several serious injuries. The court found that the allegations are grave, the prosecution's case is supported by medical reports, witness statements, and an inquest report, and therefore bail enlargement was not warranted despite the petitioners' lack of criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 676/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition of Dharmendra Kumar, Lakhindra Kumar, and Ramesh Sahani, who are accused of attacking multiple individuals with weapons in a violent mob incident that resulted in one death and several serious injuries. The court found that the allegations are grave, the prosecution's case is supported by medical reports, witness statements, and an inquest report, and therefore bail enlargement was not warranted despite the petitioners' lack of criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case