UMESH MEHTA vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 141/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),117(2),109,74,303(2),352,351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010022322026

Filing Number

2166/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

141/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

199

Police Station

NIRMALI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),117(2),109,74,303(2),352,351(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UMESH MEHTA

    Adv. RAJKUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary: The Sessions Judge, Supaul granted bail to accused Umesh Mehta @ Lalan Kumar in a case involving alleged group assault with deadly weapons, injuries, and theft. The court found the accused entitled to bail considering his prolonged judicial custody (since 18.02.2026), the existence of a counter-case filed by the accused against the informant, and that another co-accused had already been granted bail. Bail was granted on Rs. 20,000 bond with two sureties of equal amount each, with one surety required to be a family member. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Session Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 141/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary: The Sessions Judge, Supaul granted bail to accused Umesh Mehta @ Lalan Kumar in a case involving alleged group assault with deadly weapons, injuries, and theft. The court found the accused entitled to bail considering his prolonged judicial custody (since 18.02.2026), the existence of a counter-case filed by the accused against the informant, and that another co-accused had already been granted bail. Bail was granted on Rs. 20,000 bond with two sureties of equal amount each, with one surety required to be a family member. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case