DIPAK PASWAN ALIAS DIPAK KUMAR vs State of Bihar — 287/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2), 115(2),352, 109(1), 118(1), 3(5). Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRVA010008572026
e-Filing Number
24-01-2026
Filing Number
753/2026
Filing Date
24-Jan-2026
Registration No
287/2026
Registration Date
24-Jan-2026
Court
Vaishali DJ Div.
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
448
Police Station
DESHRI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DIPAK PASWAN ALIAS DIPAK KUMAR
Adv. Ram Swarup Singh
-
2.PRAMOD PASWAN ALIAS PRAMOD KUMAR
-
3.SONU KUMAR ALIAS ADITYANAND KUMAR
-
4.MUKESH PASWAN ALIAS MUKESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case 287/2026 Summary The court rejected the bail applications of Dipak Paswan, Pramod Paswan, and Sonu Kumar, finding them accused of attacking a police informant on December 16, 2025, causing serious injuries with weapons. The court determined that bail was not justified given the nature of the charges (IPC sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109(1), 118(1), 3(5)), the detailed eyewitness accounts in the FIR, and the applicants' involvement in the violent assault, despite the defense claiming false accusations due to local disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 287/2026
Case 287/2026 Summary The court rejected the bail applications of Dipak Paswan, Pramod Paswan, and Sonu Kumar, finding them accused of attacking a police informant on December 16, 2025, causing serious injuries with weapons. The court determined that bail was not justified given the nature of the charges (IPC sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109(1), 118(1), 3(5)), the detailed eyewitness accounts in the FIR, and the applicants' involvement in the violent assault, despite the defense claiming false accusations due to local disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts