SONU KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 342/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,109,351,2,352,3,5. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010019612026

Filing Number

1870/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

342/2026

Registration Date

10-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

25

Police Station

BARAULI

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,109,351,2,352,3,5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SONU KUMAR

    Adv. DILIP KUMAR SHARMA

  2. 2.PRAHLAD MUKHIYA

  3. 3.BABUCHAND

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition but directed the three petitioners (Sonu Kumar, Prahlad Mukhiya, and Babuchand) to surrender before the lower court within 30 days and file for regular bail, which the lower court shall decide on merits without prejudice. The court found the FIR lacked specific allegations against the petitioners, noted the injury was simple, confirmed no criminal antecedents, and observed the dispute stemmed from a land matter with counter-cases between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Admission

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 342/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition but directed the three petitioners (Sonu Kumar, Prahlad Mukhiya, and Babuchand) to surrender before the lower court within 30 days and file for regular bail, which the lower court shall decide on merits without prejudice. The court found the FIR lacked specific allegations against the petitioners, noted the injury was simple, confirmed no criminal antecedents, and observed the dispute stemmed from a land matter with counter-cases between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case