Raghubir Kumar vs State of Bihar — 1088/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2),318(4)338,336(3)340(2)112(2),61(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 28th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail - ABP
CNR: BRPA010050972026
e-Filing Number
17-03-2026
Filing Number
4428/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
1088/2026
Registration Date
17-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Patna Sadar
Judge
122-Dasj II
Decision Date
28-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
78
Police Station
GARDANI BAGH
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Raghubir Kumar
Adv. VIDYAPATI
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Apr-2026
Copy of Order
Case Summary: Raghubir Kumar v. State of Bihar (ABP 1088/2026) The Court of Additional Sessions Judge II, Patna rejected Raghubir Kumar's anticipatory bail petition on 28-04-2026. Kumar was accused of operating as a broker in an examination fraud scheme, arranging for impersonators to sit examinations on behalf of actual candidates using forged means, with co-accused Gautam Kumar alleging Kumar received ₹2,00,000 for this work. Although Kumar had no criminal antecedents and his counsel argued insufficient evidence and no conspiracy proof, the court found the nature of allegations and case circumstances warranted denial of anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Apr-2026
Disposed
Dasj II
-
22-Apr-2026
Hearing
Dasj II
-
16-Apr-2026
Hearing
Dasj II
-
06-Apr-2026
Hearing
Dasj II
-
23-Mar-2026
Copy of Order
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
Dasj II
-
18-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1088/2026
Case Summary: Raghubir Kumar v. State of Bihar (ABP 1088/2026) The Court of Additional Sessions Judge II, Patna rejected Raghubir Kumar's anticipatory bail petition on 28-04-2026. Kumar was accused of operating as a broker in an examination fraud scheme, arranging for impersonators to sit examinations on behalf of actual candidates using forged means, with co-accused Gautam Kumar alleging Kumar received ₹2,00,000 for this work. Although Kumar had no criminal antecedents and his counsel argued insufficient evidence and no conspiracy proof, the court found the nature of allegations and case circumstances warranted denial of anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts