INDU DEVI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF BIHAR — 496/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 07th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRBE010022842026
Filing Number
2138/2026
Filing Date
06-Mar-2026
Registration No
496/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Begusarai
Judge
64-District and Addl. Sessions Judge IX
Decision Date
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
Chakia OP
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.INDU DEVI AND OTHERS
Adv. CHANDRA MOHAN KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai rejected the anticipatory bail application of six accused-petitioners (Babita Devi, Ranjit Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Ghanshyam Kumar, Lalchu Yadav, and Doman Yadav) in a case involving allegations of unlawful assembly, assault with weapons, extortion demand of ₹50 lakh, and theft of ornaments. The court found the prosecution case sufficiently supported by witness statements and injury reports showing that multiple persons sustained injuries, including one grievous injury, making the allegations serious enough to deny anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Addl. Sessions Judge IX
-
04-Apr-2026
Order
District and Addl. Sessions Judge IX
-
26-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge IX
-
19-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge IX
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 496/2026
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai rejected the anticipatory bail application of six accused-petitioners (Babita Devi, Ranjit Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Ghanshyam Kumar, Lalchu Yadav, and Doman Yadav) in a case involving allegations of unlawful assembly, assault with weapons, extortion demand of ₹50 lakh, and theft of ornaments. The court found the prosecution case sufficiently supported by witness statements and injury reports showing that multiple persons sustained injuries, including one grievous injury, making the allegations serious enough to deny anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts