NITISH DAS ALIAS NITISH KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR — 330/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),117(2),109(1),303(2),74,351(2),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 15th April 2026.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL
CNR: BRJA010015832026
e-Filing Number
12-03-2026
Filing Number
1456/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
330/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
DJ Div. Jamui
Judge
8-District And Additional Sessions Judge III, Jamui
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
85
Police Station
KHAIRA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NITISH DAS ALIAS NITISH KUMAR
Adv. Kishori Das
Respondent(s)
STATE OF BIHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District And Additional Sessions Judge III, Jamui
Disposed
HEARING.
HEARING.
HEARING.
Restored
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | HEARING. |
| 25-03-2026 | HEARING. |
| 18-03-2026 | HEARING. |
| 18-03-2026 | Restored |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 330/2026 - Nitish Das v. State of Bihar Court Decision: The court dismissed Nitish Das's bail petition. The court found that credible evidence supports the charges against him, including eyewitness testimony from the victim's wife and medical evidence of injuries sustained in the alleged assault on March 3, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court noted that multiple prosecution witnesses corroborated the FIR allegations that the petitioner, while intoxicated, forcibly stopped the informant's vehicle, assaulted him with a pistol butt causing head injury, and also attacked the informant's wife. The court determined bail was not warranted given the serious nature of charges under IPC sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 74, 351(2), 352, and 3(5). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 330/2026 - Nitish Das v. State of Bihar Court Decision: The court dismissed Nitish Das's bail petition. The court found that credible evidence supports the charges against him, including eyewitness testimony from the victim's wife and medical evidence of injuries sustained in the alleged assault on March 3, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court noted that multiple prosecution witnesses corroborated the FIR allegations that the petitioner, while intoxicated, forcibly stopped the informant's vehicle, assaulted him with a pistol butt causing head injury, and also attacked the informant's wife. The court determined bail was not warranted given the serious nature of charges under IPC sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 74, 351(2), 352, and 3(5). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts