Dilip kumar alias Dilip patel vs state of bihar — 188/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRWC100028722026
Filing Number
2735/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
188/2026
Registration Date
17-Mar-2026
Court
Bagha Sub Div. Court
Judge
2-District Additional Sessions Judge Ist
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
349
Police Station
Ramnagar
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Dilip kumar alias Dilip patel
Adv. SHRI UPADHYAY SUNIL KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.state of bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 188/2026 Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to Dilip Kumar (age 21) in the motorcycle theft case. He must furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, and remain physically present at all court dates until charge framing; bail will be cancelled if he is absent on three consecutive dates without valid reason. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR but only mentioned in a co-accused's confessional statement; the stolen motorcycle was recovered from another co-accused's house, not his; he was not identified in CCTV footage; and two other co-accused had already been granted regular bail, making his case relatively weaker for the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Additional Sessions Judge Ist
-
07-Apr-2026
Order
District Additional Sessions Judge Ist
-
25-Mar-2026
Hearing
Ist Additional District and Session Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 188/2026
Case Summary: 188/2026 Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to Dilip Kumar (age 21) in the motorcycle theft case. He must furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, and remain physically present at all court dates until charge framing; bail will be cancelled if he is absent on three consecutive dates without valid reason. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR but only mentioned in a co-accused's confessional statement; the stolen motorcycle was recovered from another co-accused's house, not his; he was not identified in CCTV footage; and two other co-accused had already been granted regular bail, making his case relatively weaker for the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts