Manjeet kumar vs State of Bihar — 474/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 111(3),313. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 13th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRVA010017132026
e-Filing Number
10-02-2026
Filing Number
1541/2026
Filing Date
11-Feb-2026
Registration No
474/2026
Registration Date
11-Feb-2026
Court
Vaishali DJ Div.
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
736
Police Station
GAOROL
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Manjeet kumar
Adv. RAHUL KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case 474/2026 Summary: The Sessions Court, Vaishali rejected Manjeet Kumar's anticipatory bail application on March 13, 2026. The petitioner was accused of criminal conspiracy and illegal firearms possession (BNS sections 111(3), 313; Arms Act sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35) following a December 7, 2025 police operation in Vaishali. While the court found insufficient direct evidence against the petitioner personally—no incriminating articles were recovered from him—it rejected bail based on: co-accused confessions naming him, witness corroboration, his prior criminal history of four similar cases, and the serious nature of the allegations involving conspiracy to commit crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 474/2026
Case 474/2026 Summary: The Sessions Court, Vaishali rejected Manjeet Kumar's anticipatory bail application on March 13, 2026. The petitioner was accused of criminal conspiracy and illegal firearms possession (BNS sections 111(3), 313; Arms Act sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35) following a December 7, 2025 police operation in Vaishali. While the court found insufficient direct evidence against the petitioner personally—no incriminating articles were recovered from him—it rejected bail based on: co-accused confessions naming him, witness corroboration, his prior criminal history of four similar cases, and the serious nature of the allegations involving conspiracy to commit crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts