DHARMENDRA CHAUDHARY ALIAS ADITA KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH — 452/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,324,326,307,34. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRGA010042802026

Filing Number

4084/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

452/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Gaya DJ Div.

Judge

5-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

350

Police Station

WAZIRGANJ

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,324,326,307,34
Arms Act Section 27

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHARMENDRA CHAUDHARY ALIAS ADITA KUMAR

    Adv. NIKHAT PARWEEN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya rejected Dharmendra Chaudhary's bail petition in a case involving charges of attempted murder (firing pistols), criminal intimidation, and Arms Act violations. The court found direct allegations against the petitioner of shooting the informant, combined with five prior criminal antecedents establishing him as a habitual offender, warranting continued custody despite a co-accused receiving bail after serving seven months in judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Bail Matters

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 452/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya rejected Dharmendra Chaudhary's bail petition in a case involving charges of attempted murder (firing pistols), criminal intimidation, and Arms Act violations. The court found direct allegations against the petitioner of shooting the informant, combined with five prior criminal antecedents establishing him as a habitual offender, warranting continued custody despite a co-accused receiving bail after serving seven months in judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case