AMIT KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 77/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 308(2),308(3),126(2),115(2),351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSO010005172026

e-Filing Number

25-02-2026

Filing Number

478/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

77/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

Sheohar DJ Div.

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

04

Police Station

Tariyani Chhapra

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 308(2),308(3),126(2),115(2),351(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMIT KUMAR

    Adv. Dharmendra kumar singh

  2. 2.VINOD SINGH

    Adv. Dharmendra kumar singh

  3. 3.BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

    Adv. Dharmendra kumar singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court ruled that the appellant's plea for exemption from the prescribed procedure was rejected, and the case was remitted back to the lower court for proper adjudication according to law. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds to bypass statutory requirements, and therefore the matter must proceed through the regular judicial process with due consideration of evidence and applicable legal provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 77/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court ruled that the appellant's plea for exemption from the prescribed procedure was rejected, and the case was remitted back to the lower court for proper adjudication according to law. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds to bypass statutory requirements, and therefore the matter must proceed through the regular judicial process with due consideration of evidence and applicable legal provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case