CHINTU KUMAR vs THE STATE OF BIHAR — 318/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 366a. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRMP010014622026

Filing Number

1379/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

318/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Madhepura

Judge

29-District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

153

Police Station

SINGHESHWARASTHAN

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 366a
Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHINTU KUMAR

    Adv. RAJESH NANDAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Chintu Kumar's anticipatory bail petition in a case under IPC Section 366A (kidnapping for marriage). Although the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC claimed she eloped and married voluntarily, the court found that witness statements, the informant's account, and the victim's school records proving her minor status (DOB: 08.03.2003) supported the prosecution's case. The court concluded the petitioner retained the minor girl without legal guardian permission, making anticipatory bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 318/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Chintu Kumar's anticipatory bail petition in a case under IPC Section 366A (kidnapping for marriage). Although the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC claimed she eloped and married voluntarily, the court found that witness statements, the informant's account, and the victim's school records proving her minor status (DOB: 08.03.2003) supported the prosecution's case. The court concluded the petitioner retained the minor girl without legal guardian permission, making anticipatory bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case