IMRAN SHEIKH URF MD IMRAN vs STATE OF BIHAR — 315/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),137(2),109,309(5),3(5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRST010012002026

e-Filing Number

09-03-2026

Filing Number

1077/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

315/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Sitamarhi

Judge

2-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

393

Police Station

PUPRI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),137(2),109,309(5),3(5
Arms Act Section 25(1-B)a,26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IMRAN SHEIKH URF MD IMRAN

    Adv. MUKESH KUMAR JHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The court granted anticipatory bail to Imran Sheikh in connection with a dacoity case involving alleged armed robbery of cash and a laptop. The court found that no incriminating articles were recovered from the petitioner himself, his co-accused had already been granted bail, he had no criminal antecedent, and previous disputes between parties were compromised, warranting bail on ₹15,000 with two sureties and conditions to cooperate in investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 315/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted anticipatory bail to Imran Sheikh in connection with a dacoity case involving alleged armed robbery of cash and a laptop. The court found that no incriminating articles were recovered from the petitioner himself, his co-accused had already been granted bail, he had no criminal antecedent, and previous disputes between parties were compromised, warranting bail on ₹15,000 with two sureties and conditions to cooperate in investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case