SANTOSH PASWAN AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 42/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),61(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 26th March 2026.

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSU010002682026

Case disposed

Filing Number

257/2026

Filing Date

09-01-2026

Registration No

42/2026

Registration Date

09-01-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

26th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

FIR Details

FIR Number

381

Police Station

BIRPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),61(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

SANTOSH PASWAN AND OTHERS

Adv. NAGENDRA NARAYAN THAKUR

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Hearing History

Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge

26-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

28-02-2026

HEARING

20-02-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

26-03-2026
Copy of order

Case Summary: ABA-42/2026 The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Santosh Paswan, Mantu Paswan, and Makeshwar Paswan in a murder case. The court found serious allegations that the accused actively participated in killing Ramprasad Deo using sharp-edged weapons, with evidence including witness statements, call records, CCTV footage, and a postmortem report confirming fatal throat injuries. The court deemed custodial interrogation necessary and ruled the allegations too grave to warrant bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ABA-42/2026 The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Santosh Paswan, Mantu Paswan, and Makeshwar Paswan in a murder case. The court found serious allegations that the accused actively participated in killing Ramprasad Deo using sharp-edged weapons, with evidence including witness statements, call records, CCTV footage, and a postmortem report confirming fatal throat injuries. The court deemed custodial interrogation necessary and ruled the allegations too grave to warrant bail. 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. Supaul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case