VINAY KUMAR CHOUDHARI AND ANOTHER vs State of Bihar — 570/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),318(2),338,336(2),336(3),340(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRBJ010031342026
Filing Number
2445/2026
Filing Date
18-Feb-2026
Registration No
570/2026
Registration Date
19-Feb-2026
Court
Bhojpur DJ Division
Judge
1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 18-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
12
Police Station
IMADPUR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VINAY KUMAR CHOUDHARI AND ANOTHER
Adv. SUDAMA SINGH
-
2.SIKANDAR RAM
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Order
The Court of District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur allowed the anticipatory bail petition of Vinay Kumar Chaudhary and Sikandar Ram, who were accused of illegally transporting sand in their tractors. The court found that all charges carried imprisonment of less than 7 years, the petitioners were merely tractor owners not present at the occurrence, and they had clean antecedents with no risk of tampering evidence since witnesses were official and evidence was digitally controlled. They were granted bail on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bonds each with two sureties, subject to conditions including availability for police interrogation and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge
-
21-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 570/2026
The Court of District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur allowed the anticipatory bail petition of Vinay Kumar Chaudhary and Sikandar Ram, who were accused of illegally transporting sand in their tractors. The court found that all charges carried imprisonment of less than 7 years, the petitioners were merely tractor owners not present at the occurrence, and they had clean antecedents with no risk of tampering evidence since witnesses were official and evidence was digitally controlled. They were granted bail on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bonds each with two sureties, subject to conditions including availability for police interrogation and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts