Halima Khatun vs State of Bihar — 86/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),329(3),126(2),115(2),352,352(2),76,3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRDA200001602026
Filing Number
158/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
86/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-2026
Court
Biraul DJ Division
Judge
1-District Additional Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
84
Police Station
KUSESHWRA ASTHAN
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Halima Khatun
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
-
2.Rahisa Khatun
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
-
3.Sallo Khatun
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
-
4.Md Matibul
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
-
5.Md Annu
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
-
6.Md Manir
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
-
7.Md Fulo
Adv. Sri Uttam Chaupal
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Halima Khatun and five others accused of a planned armed attack on the informant's son on 07.02.2026, causing serious head injuries with intent to kill, and subsequent assault on family members who intervened. The court found the offences serious in nature, particularly under non-bailable sections 109(1) and 76 of BNS, and determined that the gravity of the allegations and vital injuries sustained warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Additional Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Order
District Additional Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Additional Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Additional Sessions Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 86/2026
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Halima Khatun and five others accused of a planned armed attack on the informant's son on 07.02.2026, causing serious head injuries with intent to kill, and subsequent assault on family members who intervened. The court found the offences serious in nature, particularly under non-bailable sections 109(1) and 76 of BNS, and determined that the gravity of the allegations and vital injuries sustained warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts