DEEP NARAYAN THAKUR vs THE STATE OF BIHAR — 588/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),190,126(2),115(2),118(1),117(2),352,351(2),324(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 18th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRBG010027832026
Filing Number
2486/2026
Filing Date
24-Mar-2026
Registration No
588/2026
Registration Date
24-Mar-2026
Court
Bhagalpur DJ Div.
Judge
3-Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
18-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
120
Police Station
SULTANGANJ
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DEEP NARAYAN THAKUR
Adv. PANKAJ KUMAR DAS
-
2.JANARDAN THAKUR
-
3.GOPAL THAKUR
-
4.RAVINDRA THAKUR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Deep Narayan Thakur, Janardan Thakur, Gopal Thakur, and Rabindra Thakur in connection with a land dispute incident where they allegedly attacked the informant and his son with deadly weapons, causing grievous injuries including head lacerations and hand fractures. The judge found the allegations serious based on medical evidence corroborating the injuries and witness statements supporting the prosecution narrative, determining the petitioners did not deserve anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I
-
08-Apr-2026
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I
-
07-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 588/2026
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Deep Narayan Thakur, Janardan Thakur, Gopal Thakur, and Rabindra Thakur in connection with a land dispute incident where they allegedly attacked the informant and his son with deadly weapons, causing grievous injuries including head lacerations and hand fractures. The judge found the allegations serious based on medical evidence corroborating the injuries and witness statements supporting the prosecution narrative, determining the petitioners did not deserve anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts