PRASANT KUMAR ALIAS PRASHANT MANI AND OTHER vs STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA — 885/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109,352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRGA010039282026
Filing Number
3741/2026
Filing Date
28-Feb-2026
Registration No
885/2026
Registration Date
28-Feb-2026
Court
Gaya DJ Div.
Judge
5-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
49
Police Station
Kotwali
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRASANT KUMAR ALIAS PRASHANT MANI AND OTHER
Adv. RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH
-
2.RISHABH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya granted anticipatory bail to two young accused students (aged 20-22) charged with firearm offenses under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court found that the informant was uncertain about the accused's identity, parties had reached a compromise, no injury occurred, and the FIR was based on misunderstanding; the court prioritized the petitioners' youth and future prospects as students preparing for competitive exams. The petitioners must appear before the trial court within one month and furnish bail bonds of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge-II
-
10-Mar-2026
Bail Matters
District and Additional Sessions Judge-II
-
09-Mar-2026
Bail Matters
District and Additional Sessions Judge-II
-
06-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 885/2026
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya granted anticipatory bail to two young accused students (aged 20-22) charged with firearm offenses under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court found that the informant was uncertain about the accused's identity, parties had reached a compromise, no injury occurred, and the FIR was based on misunderstanding; the court prioritized the petitioners' youth and future prospects as students preparing for competitive exams. The petitioners must appear before the trial court within one month and furnish bail bonds of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts