DILSHAD vs STATE OF BIHAR — 79/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRKI010006782026

Filing Number

606/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

79/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Kishanganj

Judge

2-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

24

Police Station

BAHADURGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DILSHAD

    Adv. MD. FIROZ ALAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    Case Summary: Dilshad v. State of Bihar (79/2026) The Sessions Judge rejected Dilshad's bail petition in a murder case where he is accused of killing his wife Nasrin and hanging her body in a graveyard. The court found the prosecution's case credible, noting that witnesses in the case diary corroborated the allegations, a charge sheet was filed under BNS Section 103(1), and cognizance was taken. Despite the petitioner's arguments of false implication and clean antecedents, the court determined that his alleged involvement in the serious offense warranted continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 79/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Dilshad v. State of Bihar (79/2026) The Sessions Judge rejected Dilshad's bail petition in a murder case where he is accused of killing his wife Nasrin and hanging her body in a graveyard. The court found the prosecution's case credible, noting that witnesses in the case diary corroborated the allegations, a charge sheet was filed under BNS Section 103(1), and cognizance was taken. Despite the petitioner's arguments of false implication and clean antecedents, the court determined that his alleged involvement in the serious offense warranted continued 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