DURGESH KUMAR, PUSHPAM KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR — 273/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,303,2,189,2,127,2,329,3,329,4,109,121,1,121,2,324,4,132,352,351,2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 26th March 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRPU010025012026
Filing Number
2335/2026
Filing Date
12-Mar-2026
Registration No
273/2026
Registration Date
12-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Purnea
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
38
Police Station
KHAJANCHI HAT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DURGESH KUMAR, PUSHPAM KUMAR
Adv. MD MAMNOON ALAM
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF BIHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case 273/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge, Purnea, granted bail to petitioner Durgesh Kumar @ Pushpam Kumar in a case involving charges under multiple BNS sections arising from a January 2026 incident at Mahila College, Purnea. The court found that although the petitioner was named in the FIR, he was merely an employee of co-accused Prafulla Chandra Roy with no specific overt act attributed to him individually—functioning only as a member of an alleged unlawful assembly. The court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, noting that similarly situated co-accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 273/2026
Case 273/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge, Purnea, granted bail to petitioner Durgesh Kumar @ Pushpam Kumar in a case involving charges under multiple BNS sections arising from a January 2026 incident at Mahila College, Purnea. The court found that although the petitioner was named in the FIR, he was merely an employee of co-accused Prafulla Chandra Roy with no specific overt act attributed to him individually—functioning only as a member of an alleged unlawful assembly. The court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, noting that similarly situated co-accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts