AYUSH KUMAR vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 166/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 384,386,420,120B. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010025272026

Filing Number

2443/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

166/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

214

Police Station

PIPRA

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 384,386,420,120B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AYUSH KUMAR

    Adv. SHEEL BHADRA KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The District and Sessions Court of Supaul granted bail to the accused Ayush Kumar in a case registered under IPC sections 384, 386, 420, and 120(B)/34 (extortion, dacoity, and criminal intimidation). The court found that the accused was not the primary accused in the FIR, a settlement had been reached between the complainant and accused, and reconciliation documents were on record. The bail was granted on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of equal amount, with the condition that one surety must be a recognized resident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Session Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 166/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District and Sessions Court of Supaul granted bail to the accused Ayush Kumar in a case registered under IPC sections 384, 386, 420, and 120(B)/34 (extortion, dacoity, and criminal intimidation). The court found that the accused was not the primary accused in the FIR, a settlement had been reached between the complainant and accused, and reconciliation documents were on record. The bail was granted on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of equal amount, with the condition that one surety must be a recognized resident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case