Manoj Alias Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar — 1078/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 140(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail - ABP

CNR: BRPA010050822026

e-Filing Number

17-03-2026

Filing Number

4415/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

1078/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Patna Sadar

Judge

102-Dasj VIII

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

45

Police Station

JANIPUR THANA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 140(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manoj Alias Manoj Kumar Singh

    Adv. Bijay Bhanu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge rejected anticipatory bail for Manoj Kumar Singh, accused of kidnapping for ransom (Rs. 70 lakhs) under BNS sections 140(2) and 3(5). The court found substantial evidence including the victim's recorded statement, co-accused's confession, a suspicious agreement dated inconsistently, and the petitioner's prior criminal record, concluding there was grave risk of evidence tampering during ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Dasj VIII

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj VIII

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj VIII

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj VIII

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1078/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected anticipatory bail for Manoj Kumar Singh, accused of kidnapping for ransom (Rs. 70 lakhs) under BNS sections 140(2) and 3(5). The court found substantial evidence including the victim's recorded statement, co-accused's confession, a suspicious agreement dated inconsistently, and the petitioner's prior criminal record, concluding there was grave risk of evidence tampering during ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case