SONU KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 753/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BREC010050182026

Filing Number

4651/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

753/2026

Registration Date

18-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 15-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

41

Police Station

SANGRAMPUR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SONU KUMAR

    Adv. ARVIND KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Order By CourtView PDF

    Case 753/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected Sonu Kumar's bail petition in an Arms Act case (Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024). The petitioner was arrested with recovered ammunition and a country-made pistol, and his co-accused confessed to involvement in a Gandak Dam robbery. The court found the grounds for bail insufficient given the serious nature of charges, corroborating witness statements, and the petitioner's three prior criminal antecedents (despite his petition claiming only one). The petitioner may renew the bail application after three months if trial proceedings remain delayed. 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. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  5. 19-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 753/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 753/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected Sonu Kumar's bail petition in an Arms Act case (Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024). The petitioner was arrested with recovered ammunition and a country-made pistol, and his co-accused confessed to involvement in a Gandak Dam robbery. The court found the grounds for bail insufficient given the serious nature of charges, corroborating witness statements, and the petitioner's three prior criminal antecedents (despite his petition claiming only one). The petitioner may renew the bail application after three months if trial proceedings remain delayed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case