MANOJ YADAV vs State (Bihar) — 228/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 308(3),308(4),351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

A. B. P. - Anticipatory Bail Application

CNR: BRBA010007702026

e-Filing Number

11-02-2026

Filing Number

705/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

228/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Banka

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

430

Police Station

FULI DUMAR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 308(3),308(4),351(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOJ YADAV

    Adv. SUNIL KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State (Bihar)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    ContestedView PDF

    The Sessions Judge, Banka granted anticipatory bail to Manoj Yadav, accused of extortion under BNS Sections 308(3), 308(4), 351(2), and 351(3). The court found that the FIR itself revealed an underlying land dispute between parties, creating possibility of false implication, and noted that a co-accused had been granted similar bail, warranting parity in treatment. Bail was granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 228/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge, Banka granted anticipatory bail to Manoj Yadav, accused of extortion under BNS Sections 308(3), 308(4), 351(2), and 351(3). The court found that the FIR itself revealed an underlying land dispute between parties, creating possibility of false implication, and noted that a co-accused had been granted similar bail, warranting parity in treatment. Bail was granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case