Raushan Kumar vs State of Bihar — 407/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),109(1),74,303(2),352, 351(2),351(3),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRJE010023202026

e-Filing Number

10-03-2026

Filing Number

2073/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

407/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Jehanabad DJ Div

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

68

Police Station

KAKO

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),109(1),74,303(2),352, 351(2),351(3),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Raushan Kumar

    Adv. Rajesh Kumar

  2. 2.Nitu Kumari

    Adv. Rajesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Sessions Court, Jehanabad rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Raushan Kumar and Nitu Kumari, who were accused of assault, theft, and other offences under the IPC. The court found that the petitioners were named in the FIR with substantive allegations of active participation in the alleged incident, supported by the injured person's statement, medical evidence of grievous injury, and witness corroboration, making them unsuitable for anticipatory bail at this stage of investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 407/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Court, Jehanabad rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Raushan Kumar and Nitu Kumari, who were accused of assault, theft, and other offences under the IPC. The court found that the petitioners were named in the FIR with substantive allegations of active participation in the alleged incident, supported by the injured person's statement, medical evidence of grievous injury, and witness corroboration, making them unsuitable for anticipatory bail at this stage of investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case