BIRENDRA RAM vs STATE — 34/2026

Case under Arms Act Section 27. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Petition

CNR: BRRO100001102026

e-Filing Number

19-01-2026

Filing Number

88/2026

Filing Date

20-Jan-2026

Registration No

34/2026

Registration Date

20-Jan-2026

Court

DJ Div. Bikramganj

Judge

12-District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

51

Police Station

NASRIGANJ

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Arms Act Section 27
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Indian Penal Code Section 323,307

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIRENDRA RAM

    Adv. pavan kumar singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    RejectedView PDF

    The court rejected Birendra Ram's bail petition under Case 34/2026, arising from FIR 51/2024 involving charges under IPC Sections 393, 307, and the Arms Act Section 27. The prosecution alleged that co-accused fired at the informant (a wholesale businessman) following an attempted robbery, causing a gunshot wound to his abdomen and lower back. The court found the charges serious and concluded that releasing the accused on bail was inappropriate given the gravity of the offense and evidence including the medical report and CDR records showing pre-planned conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  6. 05-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 20-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 34/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Birendra Ram's bail petition under Case 34/2026, arising from FIR 51/2024 involving charges under IPC Sections 393, 307, and the Arms Act Section 27. The prosecution alleged that co-accused fired at the informant (a wholesale businessman) following an attempted robbery, causing a gunshot wound to his abdomen and lower back. The court found the charges serious and concluded that releasing the accused on bail was inappropriate given the gravity of the offense and evidence including the medical report and CDR records showing pre-planned conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case