SUBODH SHARMA vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 46/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 331(2),305(A). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th April 2026.

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSU010002732026

Case disposed

Filing Number

262/2026

Filing Date

09-01-2026

Registration No

46/2026

Registration Date

09-01-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

6-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

FIR Details

FIR Number

438

Police Station

SUPAUL

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 331(2),305(A)

Petitioner(s)

SUBODH SHARMA

Adv. RAJKUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Hearing History

Judge: 6-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II

24-04-2026

Disposed

17-04-2026

HEARING

02-04-2026

HEARING

23-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

24-04-2026
Copy of order

Case Summary: 46/2026 The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul rejected Subodh Sharma's anticipatory bail petition in a theft case. The court found substantial incriminating evidence: the stolen mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner's possession with a different SIM card, he previously fled police custody (triggering a separate case), and witness statements corroborated the theft. Given the petitioner's prior criminal history and ongoing investigation, the court determined a risk of evidence tampering if bail were granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 46/2026 The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul rejected Subodh Sharma's anticipatory bail petition in a theft case. The court found substantial incriminating evidence: the stolen mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner's possession with a different SIM card, he previously fled police custody (triggering a separate case), and witness statements corroborated the theft. Given the petitioner's prior criminal history and ongoing investigation, the court determined a risk of evidence tampering if bail were granted. 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