SHAKTI SWARNKAR, SHAKTI KUMAR SONI vs STATE OF BIHAR — 273/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,124,1,3,5. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRPU010011942026

Filing Number

1111/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

273/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Purnea

Judge

4-2nd Dasj

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

167

Police Station

BARHARA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,124,1,3,5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAKTI SWARNKAR, SHAKTI KUMAR SONI

    Adv. AJAY KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case 273/2026 Summary: The court rejected Shakti Swarnkar's anticipatory bail petition in an acid attack case where he and three others allegedly sprayed acid on multiple persons in July 2025, causing grievous injuries to at least one victim. The judge found that the petitioner was FIR-named, present at the scene, and the deliberate carrying of acid demonstrated clear criminal intent, outweighing bail considerations despite the petitioner's claim of false implication due to a land dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Dasj

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  7. 28-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  10. 11-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 273/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 273/2026 Summary: The court rejected Shakti Swarnkar's anticipatory bail petition in an acid attack case where he and three others allegedly sprayed acid on multiple persons in July 2025, causing grievous injuries to at least one victim. The judge found that the petitioner was FIR-named, present at the scene, and the deliberate carrying of acid demonstrated clear criminal intent, outweighing bail considerations despite the petitioner's claim of false implication due to a land dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case