TULSI SWARNKAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 275/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 334(1),307. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010017572026
Filing Number
1709/2026
Filing Date
13-02-2026
Registration No
275/2026
Registration Date
13-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
25
Police Station
KISHANPUR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TULSI SWARNKAR
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 28-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 275/2026 - Tulsi Swarnkar v. State of Bihar The Sessions Judge rejected Tulsi Swarnkar's anticipatory bail application in a theft case involving multiple jewelry shop burglaries on 26-27 January 2026. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the crime: co-accused Mehadi Alam's confessional statement specifically named Swarnkar as the organizer, and stolen jewelry was recovered from locations identified in that statement, corroborating the confession. The court determined custodial interrogation was necessary and denied bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 275/2026 - Tulsi Swarnkar v. State of Bihar The Sessions Judge rejected Tulsi Swarnkar's anticipatory bail application in a theft case involving multiple jewelry shop burglaries on 26-27 January 2026. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the crime: co-accused Mehadi Alam's confessional statement specifically named Swarnkar as the organizer, and stolen jewelry was recovered from locations identified in that statement, corroborating the confession. The court determined custodial interrogation was necessary and denied bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts