CHANDAN KUMAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - RAJARAM SINGH — 112/2026

Case under Arms Act Section 25(1B),A,26. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition

CNR: BRNL100004822026

Filing Number

473/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

112/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Hilsa

Judge

14-District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

149

Police Station

EKANGARSARAI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Arms Act Section 25(1B),A,26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDAN KUMAR

    Adv. DINESH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - RAJARAM SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Copy of Order

    Case Summary: 112/2026 The court rejected Chandan Kumar's petition challenging his arrest and custodial interrogation. The court found that the petitioner's claims of illegal arrest and torture were unsubstantiated, lacking documentary or witness evidence. The court upheld the validity of the FIR (Case 149/2025) and dismissed the petition, directing that the petitioner's grievances be resolved through appropriate legal remedies available in the criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

  5. 19-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

  7. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl.Sessions Judge-V

  9. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 112/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 112/2026 The court rejected Chandan Kumar's petition challenging his arrest and custodial interrogation. The court found that the petitioner's claims of illegal arrest and torture were unsubstantiated, lacking documentary or witness evidence. The court upheld the validity of the FIR (Case 149/2025) and dismissed the petition, directing that the petitioner's grievances be resolved through appropriate legal remedies available in the criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case