RAJA YADAV vs State of Bihar — 409/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64,115(2),351(2),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRDA010022342026

Filing Number

2074/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

409/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Darbhanga

Judge

2-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

391

Police Station

BAHERI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64,115(2),351(2),352,3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJA YADAV

    Adv. Ramapati Jha

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    Case Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Darbhanga rejected the anticipatory bail application of Raja Yadav (age 20), who faces charges under BNS Sections 64, 115(2), 351(2), 352, and 3(5) for allegedly seducing a woman on the pretext of marriage and subsequently abandoning and assaulting her. The court held that the serious nature of the rape allegations and established judicial precedent that compromise cannot override bail considerations in grave offences warranted denial of anticipatory bail, despite the petitioner's claim of false implication and settlement between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 409/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Darbhanga rejected the anticipatory bail application of Raja Yadav (age 20), who faces charges under BNS Sections 64, 115(2), 351(2), 352, and 3(5) for allegedly seducing a woman on the pretext of marriage and subsequently abandoning and assaulting her. The court held that the serious nature of the rape allegations and established judicial precedent that compromise cannot override bail considerations in grave offences warranted denial of anticipatory bail, despite the petitioner's claim of false implication and settlement between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case