RAJESH PASWAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - V.S.SAHAY — B.A./5051/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 310(2),BNS. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010181092026

Filing Number

B.A./11751/2026

Filing Date

27-May-2026

Registration No

B.A./5051/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-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

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 310(2),BNS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJESH PASWAN

    Adv. RANDHIR KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - V.S.SAHAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary rejected Rajesh Paswan's second bail application in a case involving charges under Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023. The court found that charge framing and co-accused's bail admission were insufficient grounds for release, considering the serious nature of allegations and risks of absconding or evidence tampering. The petition was denied based on the same reasoning as the earlier rejection dated 20.11.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

  4. 27-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./5051/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary rejected Rajesh Paswan's second bail application in a case involving charges under Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023. The court found that charge framing and co-accused's bail admission were insufficient grounds for release, considering the serious nature of allegations and risks of absconding or evidence tampering. The petition was denied based on the same reasoning as the earlier rejection dated 20.11.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case