AVINASH KUMAR AND FOUR OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR — 264/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,504,506,448,34. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL
CNR: BRJA010011552026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2026
Filing Number
1061/2026
Filing Date
19-02-2026
Registration No
264/2026
Registration Date
19-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Jamui
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
6
Police Station
CHANDRADEEP
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AVINASH KUMAR AND FOUR OTHERS
Adv. Gopal Krishna
PAPPU SINGH
Adv. Gopal Krishna
LAXMAN PANDEY ALIAS AMIT KUMAR
Adv. Gopal Krishna
SANJEEV SINGH
Adv. Gopal Krishna
YOGENDRA SINGH ALIAS YOGI SINGH
Adv. Gopal Krishna
Respondent(s)
STATE OF BIHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
Disposed
HEARING.
HEARING.
HEARING.
HEARING.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | HEARING. |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING. |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING. |
| 28-02-2026 | HEARING. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: ABA No. 264/2026 Decision: The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the five petitioners (Avinash Kumar, Pappu Singh, Laxman Pandey, Sanjeev Singh, and Yogendra Singh) in a murder case. The court found that cognizance had been taken in a serious offense under IPC sections 302, 120B with 34, and Arms Act section 27, and determined that incriminating material existed against the petitioners in the case diary. Additionally, four of the five petitioners had prior criminal antecedents, strengthening the prosecution's position against granting bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ABA No. 264/2026 Decision: The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the five petitioners (Avinash Kumar, Pappu Singh, Laxman Pandey, Sanjeev Singh, and Yogendra Singh) in a murder case. The court found that cognizance had been taken in a serious offense under IPC sections 302, 120B with 34, and Arms Act section 27, and determined that incriminating material existed against the petitioners in the case diary. Additionally, four of the five petitioners had prior criminal antecedents, strengthening the prosecution's position against granting bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts