Rahul Kumar Gaurav alias Prince Kumar vs State of Bihar — 832/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),109,118(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 30th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail - ABP
CNR: BRPA010038402026
Filing Number
3341/2026
Filing Date
24-Feb-2026
Registration No
832/2026
Registration Date
24-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Patna Sadar
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
96
Police Station
BUDHA COLONY
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rahul Kumar Gaurav alias Prince Kumar
Adv. Sunil Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Copy of Order
Case 832/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected Rahul Kumar Gaurav's anticipatory bail petition in a shooting incident case involving charges under BNS sections 109, 118(1), 190, 191(3) and the Arms Act. The court found sufficient grounds to deny bail, citing the co-accused's confessional statement implicating the petitioner, CCTV evidence of gunfire exchange, the petitioner's prior criminal record for similar offences, and the ongoing investigation status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
28-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Copy of Order
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Copy of Order
-
25-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 832/2026
Case 832/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected Rahul Kumar Gaurav's anticipatory bail petition in a shooting incident case involving charges under BNS sections 109, 118(1), 190, 191(3) and the Arms Act. The court found sufficient grounds to deny bail, citing the co-accused's confessional statement implicating the petitioner, CCTV evidence of gunfire exchange, the petitioner's prior criminal record for similar offences, and the ongoing investigation status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts