RAJEEV KUMAR URF BHOLU vs STATE OF BIHAR — 158/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRST010007312026

e-Filing Number

07-02-2026

Filing Number

660/2026

Filing Date

07-Feb-2026

Registration No

158/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Sitamarhi

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

118

Police Station

RUNISAIDPUR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 394

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJEEV KUMAR URF BHOLU

    Adv. SHUBHAM KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    Copy of order

    Summary The court granted bail to petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Bholu in a criminal case under IPC Section 394 (dacoity). The court found that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, no TIP was conducted, and he was implicated only through a co-accused's confessional statement. Bail was allowed on furnishing Rs. 10,000/- bond with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 07-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 158/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted bail to petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Bholu in a criminal case under IPC Section 394 (dacoity). The court found that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, no TIP was conducted, and he was implicated only through a co-accused's confessional statement. Bail was allowed on furnishing Rs. 10,000/- bond with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case