RITIK KUMAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - Jagdish Prasad sah — 257/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 28th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRKT010015162026

Filing Number

1312/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

257/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Katihar

Judge

13-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

Decision Date

28-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

328

Police Station

MANIHARI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RITIK KUMAR

    Adv. Pawan kumar Dwivedi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - Jagdish Prasad sah

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar granted bail to accused Ritik Kumar in a case involving alleged e-rickshaw theft under Section 309(4) BNS. The court found that while the accused was named during investigation based on co-accused confessions, there was no documentary evidence linking the alleged Rs. 2,300 transfer to stolen property proceeds, and the accused had no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, bail was granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 257/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar granted bail to accused Ritik Kumar in a case involving alleged e-rickshaw theft under Section 309(4) BNS. The court found that while the accused was named during investigation based on co-accused confessions, there was no documentary evidence linking the alleged Rs. 2,300 transfer to stolen property proceeds, and the accused had no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, bail was granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case