DHARMENDRA SHARMA vs STATE — 80/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail Petition

CNR: BRRO100001652026

e-Filing Number

29-01-2026

Filing Number

128/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

80/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Court

DJ Div. Bikramganj

Judge

12-District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

172

Police Station

RAJPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHARMENDRA SHARMA

    Adv. KISHOR KUMAR KAMAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Rejected

    Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court (Bikramganj) rejected the anticipatory bail application of accused Dharmendra Sharma in a case involving the alleged murder of the informant's father on December 11, 2025. The court found that the accused was named in the FIR and the investigation was ongoing, making it improper to grant bail at the current stage despite the defense's contention that the allegations were false and fabricated by enemies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions. Judge-I

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 80/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court (Bikramganj) rejected the anticipatory bail application of accused Dharmendra Sharma in a case involving the alleged murder of the informant's father on December 11, 2025. The court found that the accused was named in the FIR and the investigation was ongoing, making it improper to grant bail at the current stage despite the defense's contention that the allegations were false and fabricated by enemies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case