PRINCE KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR — B.A./2989/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 303(2),318(4),BNS. Disposed: Contested--Bail on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010082362026

Filing Number

B.A./5384/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

B.A./2989/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

SECTION 483 ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail

Last updated 22-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 303(2),318(4),BNS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRINCE KUMAR

    Adv. ANJANI KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

    Summary The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Prince Kumar, accused of fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 1,54,000 using an ATM card under sections 303(2)/318(4) of BN.S., 2023. The court found merit in arguments that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, had been in custody since January 2026, and lacked proper identification procedures, ordering his release on Rs. 25,000 bail with two sureties and conditions including cooperation with trial and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./2989/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Prince Kumar, accused of fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 1,54,000 using an ATM card under sections 303(2)/318(4) of BN.S., 2023. The court found merit in arguments that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, had been in custody since January 2026, and lacked proper identification procedures, ordering his release on Rs. 25,000 bail with two sureties and conditions including cooperation with trial and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case