NEHAL AHAMAD vs State of Bihar — 259/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 15th April 2026.

Regular Bail

CNR: BRST010012212026

Case disposed

Filing Number

1096/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

259/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

DJ Div. Sitamarhi

Judge

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

Decision Date

15th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

423

Police Station

PUPRI

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 379

Petitioner(s)

NEHAL AHAMAD

Adv. PRABHAS KUMAR

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

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

15-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

HEARING

08-04-2026

Restored

08-04-2026

Disposed

26-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

15-04-2026
Copy of order

Case Summary: 259/2026 The District & Additional Sessions Judge I, Sitamarhi rejected Nehal Ahmad's bail application in a motorcycle theft case (Section 379 IPC). The court found prima facie evidence of Ahmad's involvement based on CCTV footage showing him assisting in stealing a Honda motorcycle and coordinating with co-accused persons, along with recovery of the stolen vehicle. The court denied bail considering the serious nature of allegations, electronic evidence, and property recovery, noting no substantial change in circumstances since an earlier bail rejection on 19.02.2026. However, Ahmad may renew his bail application after six months or earlier if charges are not framed or trial concludes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 259/2026 The District & Additional Sessions Judge I, Sitamarhi rejected Nehal Ahmad's bail application in a motorcycle theft case (Section 379 IPC). The court found prima facie evidence of Ahmad's involvement based on CCTV footage showing him assisting in stealing a Honda motorcycle and coordinating with co-accused persons, along with recovery of the stolen vehicle. The court denied bail considering the serious nature of allegations, electronic evidence, and property recovery, noting no substantial change in circumstances since an earlier bail rejection on 19.02.2026. However, Ahmad may renew his bail application after six months or earlier if charges are not framed or trial concludes. 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