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.

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSU010025272026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

2443/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

166/2026

Registration Date

09-03-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

214

Police Station

PIPRA

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

AYUSH KUMAR

Adv. SHEEL BHADRA KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Hearing History

Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge

25-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

HEARING

10-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
Copy of order

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Supaul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case