MD MUSLIM vs State of Bihar — 320/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3),190,126(2),115(2),329(4),117(2),118(1),109(1),76,303(2),352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRDA010017392026
Filing Number
1609/2026
Filing Date
19-Feb-2026
Registration No
320/2026
Registration Date
19-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Darbhanga
Judge
2-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 25-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
477
Police Station
BAHADURPUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MD MUSLIM
Adv. NARESH KUMAR JHA
-
2.MD GUDDU ALIAS MS ASGAR ALI
-
3.MD CHUNCHUN ALIAS MD MUZBIL
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
The District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Darbhanga granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners (Md. Muslim, Md. Guddu, and Md. Chunchun) accused of assault and land grabbing in a land dispute case. The court found that medical evidence showed only simple injuries (no injury on one victim, one simple injury on another), contradicting the serious allegations, and noted that most charges were bailable. Each petitioner was granted bail on furnishing ₹10,000 bonds with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
-
25-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 320/2026
The District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Darbhanga granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners (Md. Muslim, Md. Guddu, and Md. Chunchun) accused of assault and land grabbing in a land dispute case. The court found that medical evidence showed only simple injuries (no injury on one victim, one simple injury on another), contradicting the serious allegations, and noted that most charges were bailable. Each petitioner was granted bail on furnishing ₹10,000 bonds with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts