Arvind Singh vs State of Bihar — 594/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRAU010030862026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

2822/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

594/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Division Aurangabad

Judge

3-District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

84

Police Station

MADANPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arvind Singh

    Adv. Naveen kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Bail OrderView PDF

    The District and Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad (Bihar) refused the anticipatory bail application of Arbind Singh, who was accused of abusing a Scheduled Caste member using caste slurs under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that using derogatory caste names to insult SC members violates constitutional values of equality and dignity, and that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in such cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Addl. S J-I-cum special judge SC/ST and NDPS

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 594/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District and Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad (Bihar) refused the anticipatory bail application of Arbind Singh, who was accused of abusing a Scheduled Caste member using caste slurs under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that using derogatory caste names to insult SC members violates constitutional values of equality and dignity, and that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in such cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case