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
28-02-2026
Registration No
529/2026
Registration Date
28-02-2026
Court
DJ Division Aurangabad
Judge
3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
350
Police Station
OBRA
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nandkishore Yadav Alias Nand Kishore Singh
Adv. KAMLESH PRASAD SINGH
Ranjeet Yadav Alias Ranjeet Kumar
Adv. KAMLESH PRASAD SINGH
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS
HEARING
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts