RAHUL KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR — 193/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,316(2),318(2),351(2),352(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 28th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRST010007542026
e-Filing Number
09-02-2026
Filing Number
682/2026
Filing Date
09-02-2026
Registration No
193/2026
Registration Date
09-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Sitamarhi
Judge
23-District and Additional Sessions Judge - XV
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
64
Police Station
Mahila P.S.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAHUL KUMAR
Adv. RAMJI SINGH
Respondent(s)
STATE OF BIHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 23-District and Additional Sessions Judge - XV
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 20-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 15-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 06-04-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 193/2026 - Rahul Kumar v. State of Bihar Court Decision: The court rejected Rahul Kumar's bail application. The petitioner was accused of dowry-related offenses under IPC sections 85, 316(2), 318(2), 351(2), 352(2), 3(5), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found the charges serious, noting witness statements corroborated the complainant's allegations of physical and mental cruelty, extortion of approximately 31 lakh rupees in dowry, and abusive behavior post-marriage. The court rejected the defense argument that charges were fabricated, citing documented evidence of the petitioner's non-cooperation despite court notices and his legal awareness demonstrated by avoiding appearance before the magistrate despite three statutory warnings under CrPC Section 35(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 193/2026 - Rahul Kumar v. State of Bihar Court Decision: The court rejected Rahul Kumar's bail application. The petitioner was accused of dowry-related offenses under IPC sections 85, 316(2), 318(2), 351(2), 352(2), 3(5), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found the charges serious, noting witness statements corroborated the complainant's allegations of physical and mental cruelty, extortion of approximately 31 lakh rupees in dowry, and abusive behavior post-marriage. The court rejected the defense argument that charges were fabricated, citing documented evidence of the petitioner's non-cooperation despite court notices and his legal awareness demonstrated by avoiding appearance before the magistrate despite three statutory warnings under CrPC Section 35(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts