VANDANA KUMARI vs State of Bihar — 1390/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010046812026

Filing Number

4349/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1390/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

44

Police Station

RAM GARHWA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VANDANA KUMARI

    Adv. RUPNARAYAN YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Order By CourtView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Vandana Kumari, who is accused of murdering her husband Jitendra Kumar (son of the informant) along with others under sections 103(1), 61(2), 303(2), and 3(5) of the BNS. The court found credible materials in the case diary, including corroborating statements from the informant and witnesses, which supported the allegations despite the post-mortem showing no external injuries and the petitioner having no criminal antecedent. The court deemed the nature of allegations and available evidence sufficient to deny pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  4. 25-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. 1390/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Vandana Kumari, who is accused of murdering her husband Jitendra Kumar (son of the informant) along with others under sections 103(1), 61(2), 303(2), and 3(5) of the BNS. The court found credible materials in the case diary, including corroborating statements from the informant and witnesses, which supported the allegations despite the post-mortem showing no external injuries and the petitioner having no criminal antecedent. The court deemed the nature of allegations and available evidence sufficient to deny pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case