State of Bihar through Sanjula Devi vs Mukesh Kumar bhagat — 702/2025
Case under Information Technology Act Section 67A. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRDA010095282025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8639/2025
Filing Date
06-12-2025
Registration No
702/2025
Registration Date
06-12-2025
Court
DJ Div. Darbhanga
Judge
2-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
0077
Police Station
Mahila P.S.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Bihar through Sanjula Devi
Respondent(s)
Mukesh Kumar bhagat
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 24-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 11-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 02-02-2026 | STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
JUDGMENT SUMMARY The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, acquitted Mukesh Kumar Bhagat of charges under Sections 69 BNS and 66E & 67A of the Information Technology Act. The court found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the sole victim and informant herself completely resiled from the allegations in her testimony, stating that no such incident occurred and that she filed the case in anger over a land dispute. With the victim's testimony unreliable and other prosecution witnesses declared hostile, the court concluded conviction was impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
JUDGMENT SUMMARY The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, acquitted Mukesh Kumar Bhagat of charges under Sections 69 BNS and 66E & 67A of the Information Technology Act. The court found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the sole victim and informant herself completely resiled from the allegations in her testimony, stating that no such incident occurred and that she filed the case in anger over a land dispute. With the victim's testimony unreliable and other prosecution witnesses declared hostile, the court concluded conviction was impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts