Sonu Chouhan vs State of Bihar — 484/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECT on 25th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010025332026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
2315/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
484/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
Fesar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sonu Chouhan
Adv. Anup Kumar Singh
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 484/2026 - Sonu Chouhan v. State of Bihar The District Sessions Judge rejected Sonu Chouhan's anticipatory bail application in a case involving charges under BNS sections 126, 115, 351, 109, 352 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r). The court found that while the petitioner contended the matter was a private dispute without SC/ST Act applicability, the prosecution established that the accused abused the victim using caste slur ("Chamar"), constituting an offense under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The court held that anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is statutorily non-maintainable, and the accused's awareness of the victim's SC status precluded bail consideration under the express embargo of Section 18. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 484/2026 - Sonu Chouhan v. State of Bihar The District Sessions Judge rejected Sonu Chouhan's anticipatory bail application in a case involving charges under BNS sections 126, 115, 351, 109, 352 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r). The court found that while the petitioner contended the matter was a private dispute without SC/ST Act applicability, the prosecution established that the accused abused the victim using caste slur ("Chamar"), constituting an offense under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The court held that anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is statutorily non-maintainable, and the accused's awareness of the victim's SC status precluded bail consideration under the express embargo of Section 18. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts