Prakash Yadav vs State of Bihar — 479/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010025132026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
2297/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
479/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
4-District Addl. S J- IV
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
90
Police Station
Narari Kala Khurd
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prakash Yadav
Adv. anil kumar chaubey
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Addl. S J- IV
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 01-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 24-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 479/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Prakash Yadav's anticipatory bail petition filed under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the BNS. The case involved alleged theft of surplus scrap from NPGCL premises; evidence showed that Yadav's employees—Adesh Kumar (loading incharge) and Ramdeo (driver)—tampered with weighbridges and transported 15,810 kg of scrap instead of the authorized amount, causing ₹6,00,000 revenue loss. The court held that as sole proprietor, Yadav's involvement could not be ignored given his employees' direct participation in the scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 479/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Prakash Yadav's anticipatory bail petition filed under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the BNS. The case involved alleged theft of surplus scrap from NPGCL premises; evidence showed that Yadav's employees—Adesh Kumar (loading incharge) and Ramdeo (driver)—tampered with weighbridges and transported 15,810 kg of scrap instead of the authorized amount, causing ₹6,00,000 revenue loss. The court held that as sole proprietor, Yadav's involvement could not be ignored given his employees' direct participation in the scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts