Nandkishore Yadav Alias Nand Kishore Singh vs State of Bihar — 529/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRAU010026982026
e-Filing Number
28-02-2026
Filing Number
2462/2026
Filing Date
28-Feb-2026
Registration No
529/2026
Registration Date
28-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
350
Police Station
OBRA
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Nandkishore Yadav Alias Nand Kishore Singh
Adv. KAMLESH PRASAD SINGH
-
2.Ranjeet Yadav Alias Ranjeet Kumar
Adv. KAMLESH PRASAD SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Bail OrderView PDF
The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Nandkishore Yadav and Ranjit Yadav, who were accused under IPC sections 341, 323, 504/34 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1)(r)(s), 2(va) for allegedly abusing a Scheduled Caste member by using caste-related slurs. The court held that anticipatory bail under section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not maintainable when the accused knew the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, and emphasized that insulting members of Scheduled Castes violates constitutional principles of equality and dignity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 529/2026
The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Nandkishore Yadav and Ranjit Yadav, who were accused under IPC sections 341, 323, 504/34 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1)(r)(s), 2(va) for allegedly abusing a Scheduled Caste member by using caste-related slurs. The court held that anticipatory bail under section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not maintainable when the accused knew the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, and emphasized that insulting members of Scheduled Castes violates constitutional principles of equality and dignity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts