Rishabh Kumar alias Bhanu vs State of Bihar — 244/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRPA200011412026

Filing Number

1049/2026

Filing Date

21-Feb-2026

Registration No

244/2026

Registration Date

21-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Danapur

Judge

3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 04-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

607

Police Station

NAUBATPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5)
Arms Act Section 27

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rishabh Kumar alias Bhanu

    Adv. Sunil Kumar Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition of Rishabh Kumar (accused of abetting a fatal shooting in Naubatpur, Patna) after finding the offence serious in nature—causing death by firearm injury—and noting the petitioner's criminal antecedent and his named status in the FIR. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses and evidence (including FSL and postmortem reports) substantiated the charges under BNS sections 103(1), 3(5) and Arms Act section 27, warranting continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 244/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition of Rishabh Kumar (accused of abetting a fatal shooting in Naubatpur, Patna) after finding the offence serious in nature—causing death by firearm injury—and noting the petitioner's criminal antecedent and his named status in the FIR. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses and evidence (including FSL and postmortem reports) substantiated the charges under BNS sections 103(1), 3(5) and Arms Act section 27, warranting continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case