RUPESH KUMAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 153/2026
Case under Arms Act Section 25(1-B)A,26,27,35. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 13th April 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRSU010023482026
Filing Number
2271/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
153/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
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)
RUPESH KUMAR
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
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 Summary: BA-153/2026 (Rupesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) The Sessions Judge rejected Rupesh Kumar's bail application in a case involving serious charges under the Arms Act for an alleged contract killing. The court found that Kumar, along with co-accused Brajesh Kumar and Sudhanshu Kumar, was hired for ₹1,20,000 to murder Shashiranjan Jaiswal; police recovered firearms and ammunition at their instance, and multiple witnesses supported the prosecution case. Given the seriousness of the allegations, strong evidence of guilt, apprehension of evidence tampering, and prior rejection of similar bail pleas in the related case, the court denied bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: BA-153/2026 (Rupesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) The Sessions Judge rejected Rupesh Kumar's bail application in a case involving serious charges under the Arms Act for an alleged contract killing. The court found that Kumar, along with co-accused Brajesh Kumar and Sudhanshu Kumar, was hired for ₹1,20,000 to murder Shashiranjan Jaiswal; police recovered firearms and ammunition at their instance, and multiple witnesses supported the prosecution case. Given the seriousness of the allegations, strong evidence of guilt, apprehension of evidence tampering, and prior rejection of similar bail pleas in the related case, the court 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