BRAJESH KUMAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 121/2026
Case under Arms Act Section 25(1-B)A,26,27,35. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 13th April 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRSU010019882026
Filing Number
1934/2026
Filing Date
18-02-2026
Registration No
121/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
580
Police Station
TRIBENIGANJ
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BRAJESH KUMAR
Adv. JOHAR MANDAL
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 |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 01-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 25-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 121/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected bail applications for Brajesh Kumar, Sudhanshu Kumar, and Rupesh Kumar, accused of conspiracy to commit murder under the Arms Act. The court found the allegations serious—Brajesh Kumar allegedly hired the other two to kill Shashiranjan Jaiswal for Rs. 1.2 lakhs, and they allegedly shot him four times on 26.11.2025; firearms and bullets were recovered at their instance. The court cited strong prosecution evidence from recovery witnesses and apprehension of evidence tampering as grounds for bail rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 121/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge rejected bail applications for Brajesh Kumar, Sudhanshu Kumar, and Rupesh Kumar, accused of conspiracy to commit murder under the Arms Act. The court found the allegations serious—Brajesh Kumar allegedly hired the other two to kill Shashiranjan Jaiswal for Rs. 1.2 lakhs, and they allegedly shot him four times on 26.11.2025; firearms and bullets were recovered at their instance. The court cited strong prosecution evidence from recovery witnesses and apprehension of evidence tampering as grounds for bail rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts