RAHUL KUMAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 118/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 87,81. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010019452026

Filing Number

1891/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

118/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11

Police Station

TRIBENIGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 87,81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAHUL KUMAR

    Adv. NAND KISHORE YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Judge of Supaul rejected the bail application of Rahul Kumar, accused of taking a 19-year-old woman under false pretext of marriage and establishing physical relations without her consent under BNS sections 87 and 81. The court found the allegations serious, noting the victim's statements corroborated the charges, and cited concerns about evidence tampering and the preliminary investigation stage as grounds for denying bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Session Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 118/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge of Supaul rejected the bail application of Rahul Kumar, accused of taking a 19-year-old woman under false pretext of marriage and establishing physical relations without her consent under BNS sections 87 and 81. The court found the allegations serious, noting the victim's statements corroborated the charges, and cited concerns about evidence tampering and the preliminary investigation stage as grounds for denying bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case