MEHDI ALAM vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 164/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 334(1),307. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010024082026

Filing Number

2328/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

164/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

25

Police Station

KISHANPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 334(1),307

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MEHDI ALAM

    Adv. PRAVEEN KUMAR MEHTA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    Case 164/2026 Summary The Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected Mehadi Alam's bail application in a case involving coordinated thefts at three jewelry shops. The court found that Alam's confessional statement was corroborated by recovery of stolen articles (silver and gold jewelry, weighing machines) from accomplices' premises, establishing serious charges under BNS sections 334(1) and 307. Given the gravity of allegations, Alam's involvement in two prior criminal cases, the investigation's preliminary stage, and risk of evidence tampering, the court determined bail was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Session Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 164/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 164/2026 Summary The Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected Mehadi Alam's bail application in a case involving coordinated thefts at three jewelry shops. The court found that Alam's confessional statement was corroborated by recovery of stolen articles (silver and gold jewelry, weighing machines) from accomplices' premises, establishing serious charges under BNS sections 334(1) and 307. Given the gravity of allegations, Alam's involvement in two prior criminal cases, the investigation's preliminary stage, and risk of evidence tampering, the court determined bail was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case