VANDANA KUMARI vs State of Bihar — 1390/2026

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

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010046812026

Case disposed

Filing Number

4349/2026

Filing Date

11-03-2026

Registration No

1390/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

04th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

FIR Details

FIR Number

44

Police Station

RAM GARHWA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

VANDANA KUMARI

Adv. RUPNARAYAN YADAV

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and sessions Judge

04-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

04-04-2026
Order By Court

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Motihari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case