DHANANJAY KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR — 350/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

BP

CNR: BRNW010015812026

Filing Number

1429/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

350/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Nawada

Judge

3-1st Dasj

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

8

Police Station

Mahila Thana

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,351(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHANANJAY KUMAR

    Adv. Vijay Kumar II

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge in Nawada rejected the bail petition of Dhananjay Kumar, who was accused of establishing non-consensual physical relations with the informant under false marriage promises, resulting in her pregnancy, and subsequently refusing to marry her. The court found the nature and gravity of allegations under BNS Sections 69/351(2)/3(5) sufficient to deny bail, considering the circumstances of the case warranted continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    1st Dasj

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    1st Dasj

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    1st Dasj

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    1st Dasj

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    1st Dasj

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 350/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge in Nawada rejected the bail petition of Dhananjay Kumar, who was accused of establishing non-consensual physical relations with the informant under false marriage promises, resulting in her pregnancy, and subsequently refusing to marry her. The court found the nature and gravity of allegations under BNS Sections 69/351(2)/3(5) sufficient to deny bail, considering the circumstances of the case warranted continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case