SURENDRA KUMAR URF SURENDRA RAY vs STATE OF BIHAR — 220/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th April 2026.

Regular Bail

CNR: BRST010009872026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

20-02-2026

Filing Number

893/2026

Filing Date

20-02-2026

Registration No

220/2026

Registration Date

20-02-2026

Court

DJ Div. Sitamarhi

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

498

Police Station

BATHNAHA

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4)

Petitioner(s)

SURENDRA KUMAR URF SURENDRA RAY

Adv. SHUBHAM KUMAR

Respondent(s)

STATE OF BIHAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

18-04-2026

Disposed

02-04-2026

HEARING

30-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

23-02-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

18-04-2026
Copy of order

Case Summary: Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (B.P. No. 220/26) The court granted bail to petitioner Surendra Kumar, who had been in custody since March 26, 2025, under Bathnaha PS Case No. 498/24 (Section 309(4) BNS). The court found that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, and no TIP was conducted against him—his name surfaced only in confessional statements of co-accused. The court directed his release on Rs. 10,000 bail bonds with two sureties of like amount, applying the principle that pendency of multiple criminal cases cannot itself justify bail denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (B.P. No. 220/26) The court granted bail to petitioner Surendra Kumar, who had been in custody since March 26, 2025, under Bathnaha PS Case No. 498/24 (Section 309(4) BNS). The court found that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, and no TIP was conducted against him—his name surfaced only in confessional statements of co-accused. The court directed his release on Rs. 10,000 bail bonds with two sureties of like amount, applying the principle that pendency of multiple criminal cases cannot itself justify bail denial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Sitamarhi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case