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
e-Filing Number
20-02-2026
Filing Number
893/2026
Filing Date
20-Feb-2026
Registration No
220/2026
Registration Date
20-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Sitamarhi
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 28-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
498
Police Station
BATHNAHA
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SURENDRA KUMAR URF SURENDRA RAY
Adv. SHUBHAM KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF BIHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
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.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 220/2026
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.
Explore other courts