SANJAY PASWAN vs State of Bihar — 308/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,307,302. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRVA010023832026

Filing Number

2125/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

308/2026

Registration Date

27-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

271

Police Station

HAJIPUR SADAR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 394,307,302
Arms Act Section 27

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY PASWAN

    Adv. RAJEEV KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Sanjay Paswan v. State of Bihar (B.P. No. 308/2026) The Sessions Judge rejected Sanjay Paswan's bail petition in a case involving an armed robbery of an IDFC bank kendra in April 2024, where one person was killed and another injured by gunfire. The petitioner was implicated based on a co-accused's confessional statement, has ten prior criminal convictions for similar offences, and faces serious charges under IPC sections 396, 397, 326, 120(B) and Arms Act provisions. The court found the gravity of the offences and the petitioner's habitual criminal record warranted continued detention despite his six months in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 308/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sanjay Paswan v. State of Bihar (B.P. No. 308/2026) The Sessions Judge rejected Sanjay Paswan's bail petition in a case involving an armed robbery of an IDFC bank kendra in April 2024, where one person was killed and another injured by gunfire. The petitioner was implicated based on a co-accused's confessional statement, has ten prior criminal convictions for similar offences, and faces serious charges under IPC sections 396, 397, 326, 120(B) and Arms Act provisions. The court found the gravity of the offences and the petitioner's habitual criminal record warranted continued detention despite his six months in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case