SINTU KUMAR vs THE STATE OF BIHAR Advocate - Sri Uday Narayan Sinha — 517/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64,69. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st June 2026.
REGULAR BAIL.
CNR: BRSP010024282026
e-Filing Number
11-05-2026
Filing Number
2320/2026
Filing Date
11-May-2026
Registration No
517/2026
Registration Date
11-May-2026
Court
DJ Div. Sheikhpura
Judge
2-District and Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Judge SC/ST Cases)
Decision Date
01-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
12
Police Station
MAHILA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SINTU KUMAR
Adv. MD AINUL KHAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR Advocate - Sri Uday Narayan Sinha
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Jun-2026
Copy of Bail OrderView PDF
Case Summary: Sintu Kumar vs. State of Bihar (517/2026) Decision: The court rejected Sintu Kumar's bail petition. Judge Neeraj Kishore found the charges under Sections 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (sexual exploitation) serious, noting the accused allegedly lured a legally married woman, conducted a sham second marriage to exploit her sexually, and later unlawfully entered her home at midnight to assault her again. The court rejected the claimed settlement as a ploy for bail, noting the informant was absent to support it and the petitioner's actions were grave. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Jun-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Judge SC/ST Cases)
-
29-May-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Judge SC/ST Cases)
-
26-May-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
19-May-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
12-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 517/2026
Case Summary: Sintu Kumar vs. State of Bihar (517/2026) Decision: The court rejected Sintu Kumar's bail petition. Judge Neeraj Kishore found the charges under Sections 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (sexual exploitation) serious, noting the accused allegedly lured a legally married woman, conducted a sham second marriage to exploit her sexually, and later unlawfully entered her home at midnight to assault her again. The court rejected the claimed settlement as a ploy for bail, noting the informant was absent to support it and the petitioner's actions were grave. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts