STATE vs RAJKUMAR — 47/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,75,76,79,3(5). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Matters

CNR: DLST010002252026

Filing Number

107/2026

Filing Date

12-Jan-2026

Registration No

47/2026

Registration Date

12-Jan-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South , Saket

Judge

779-Additional Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

4

Police Station

Ambedkar Nagar

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,75,76,79,3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJKUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Copy Of Order

    Case Summary: 47/2026 - STATE v. RAJKUMAR The court dismissed Rajkumar's anticipatory bail application as not maintainable, finding no reasonable apprehension of arrest. The accused had already joined the investigation on 07.04.2026 and was interrogated; the investigator confirmed custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and the accused's counsel undertook to ensure continued cooperation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Sessions Judge

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Copy Of Order

  5. 04-Apr-2026

    For Bail

    Additional Sessions Judge

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy Of Order

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    For Bail

    Special Judge

  8. 03-Mar-2026

    For Bail

    Special Judge

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    For Bail

    Additional Sessions Judge -SC-Rc

  10. 13-Jan-2026

    Copy Of Order

  11. 13-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 12-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 47/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 47/2026 - STATE v. RAJKUMAR The court dismissed Rajkumar's anticipatory bail application as not maintainable, finding no reasonable apprehension of arrest. The accused had already joined the investigation on 07.04.2026 and was interrogated; the investigator confirmed custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and the accused's counsel undertook to ensure continued cooperation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case