SONU DAS ALIAS SONU KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA — 364/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201,304(B),34. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 20th April 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRGA010035152026
Filing Number
3340/2026
Filing Date
23-Feb-2026
Registration No
364/2026
Registration Date
23-Feb-2026
Court
Gaya DJ Div.
Judge
4-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
20-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 07-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
70
Police Station
Men
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SONU DAS ALIAS SONU KUMAR
Adv. KUMARI BASANTI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya rejected the bail petition of Sonu Das, who is accused of causing the dowry death of his wife under IPC sections 302, 201, and 304(B). The court found sufficient direct allegations, supporting witness statements, and circumstantial evidence (including call records showing post-crime movements) against the petitioner, and noted that his anticipatory bail had already been rejected by both the lower court and High Court, Patna. Given the serious and grave nature of the allegations and ongoing investigation, the bail was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
08-Apr-2026
Bail Matters
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
23-Mar-2026
Bail Matters
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
10-Mar-2026
Bail Matters
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
27-Feb-2026
Bail Matters
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
-
25-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 364/2026
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gaya rejected the bail petition of Sonu Das, who is accused of causing the dowry death of his wife under IPC sections 302, 201, and 304(B). The court found sufficient direct allegations, supporting witness statements, and circumstantial evidence (including call records showing post-crime movements) against the petitioner, and noted that his anticipatory bail had already been rejected by both the lower court and High Court, Patna. Given the serious and grave nature of the allegations and ongoing investigation, the bail was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts