GUDDU KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR — 389/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),126(2),74,352,3(5). Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRPU010020332026

e-Filing Number

28-02-2026

Filing Number

1886/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

389/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Purnea

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE

Last updated 04-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

29

Police Station

KRITYANAND NAGAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),126(2),74,352,3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GUDDU KUMAR

    Adv. Bhuwan Kumar Pandey

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea dismissed Guddu Kumar's anticipatory bail petition as not maintainable, finding that the accused had already been granted the benefit of Section 35(c) of BNSS during investigation, thereby eliminating any apprehension of arrest. Since the statutory protection was already extended, the court held that the anticipatory bail petition was no longer necessary or maintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 389/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea dismissed Guddu Kumar's anticipatory bail petition as not maintainable, finding that the accused had already been granted the benefit of Section 35(c) of BNSS during investigation, thereby eliminating any apprehension of arrest. Since the statutory protection was already extended, the court held that the anticipatory bail petition was no longer necessary or maintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case