Rupak Kumar vs State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 500/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3)340(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 19th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRNL010014332026
Filing Number
1247/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
500/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
Nalanda DJ Div.
Judge
4-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-VI
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
86
Police Station
RAJGIR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rupak Kumar
Adv. KAMLESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-VI
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 500/2026 The court rejected petitioner Rupak Kumar's bail application in a CTET examination fraud case. Kumar was accused of paying Rs. 5,000 to have another person (Sunny Kumar) take the exam in his name on 07-02-2026. The prosecution presented evidence including biometric records, witness testimony, and a written confession from the co-accused, establishing serious charges under IPC sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2). The court found the allegations grave and denied bail, concluding that releasing the petitioner on bail was inappropriate given the nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 500/2026 The court rejected petitioner Rupak Kumar's bail application in a CTET examination fraud case. Kumar was accused of paying Rs. 5,000 to have another person (Sunny Kumar) take the exam in his name on 07-02-2026. The prosecution presented evidence including biometric records, witness testimony, and a written confession from the co-accused, establishing serious charges under IPC sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2). The court found the allegations grave and denied bail, concluding that releasing the petitioner on bail was inappropriate given the nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts