PRAMOD PRASAD vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 143/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010022702026

Filing Number

2200/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

143/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

Police Station

KUNAULI

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(2),3(5)

Foreign Immigrants Regulation Section 14(A),23,24

Passport Act Section 13,14

Petitioner(s)

1.PRAMOD PRASAD

Adv. UNKNOWN

Respondent(s)

1.State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
18-Mar-2026

Copy of orderView PDF

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected the bail applications of Pramod Prasad (Nepali citizen) and Md. Bilal (UP resident) in a case involving alleged human trafficking and immigration violations. The court found the charges serious—involving a Bangladeshi woman attempting fraudulent entry into India via Nepal with the accused's assistance—and determined national security concerns, ongoing investigation, and flight risk justified continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
18-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal District and Session Judge
10-Mar-2026

Hearing

Principal District and Session Judge
26-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
25-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 143/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected the bail applications of Pramod Prasad (Nepali citizen) and Md. Bilal (UP resident) in a case involving alleged human trafficking and immigration violations. The court found the charges serious—involving a Bangladeshi woman attempting fraudulent entry into India via Nepal with the accused's assistance—and determined national security concerns, ongoing investigation, and flight risk justified continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.