ANAND KUMAR @ ANAND KUMAR SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VIJOY KUMAR SINHA — B.A./5004/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 310(2),111(2),(b),111(4),BNS,25(I-B),(a),25(IAAA),,35,27(I),ARMS,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 10th June 2026.
CNR: JHHC010182292026
Filing Number
B.A./11847/2026
Filing Date
27-May-2026
Registration No
B.A./5004/2026
Registration Date
01-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
ARMS & EXPLOSIVES ( 104 )
Sub-Category
Arms Act,1959 ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
10-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ANAND KUMAR @ ANAND KUMAR SINGH
Adv. HEMANT KR SHIKARWAR,ABHISHEK KUMAR,ABHISHEK KUMAR, ,MOLI SINHA,MANISH KUMAR SINGH,RAJIKA MAHALI,AMAN DEEP,PRIYANKA,ABHISHEK KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VIJOY KUMAR SINHA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
The High Court of Jharkhand rejected Anand Kumar's bail petition in a dacoity case (Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 48/2026) involving allegations under BNS 2023 and the Arms Act. The court found the allegations serious, noting he was allegedly caught red-handed committing jewelry shop dacoity as a gang member, and determined substantial risk of absconding and evidence tampering justified continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jun-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
-
27-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./5004/2026
The High Court of Jharkhand rejected Anand Kumar's bail petition in a dacoity case (Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 48/2026) involving allegations under BNS 2023 and the Arms Act. The court found the allegations serious, noting he was allegedly caught red-handed committing jewelry shop dacoity as a gang member, and determined substantial risk of absconding and evidence tampering justified continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts