MD YASHIN AND ORS vs State of Bihar — 178/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 26th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BREC010003732026
Filing Number
325/2026
Filing Date
08-Jan-2026
Registration No
178/2026
Registration Date
09-Jan-2026
Court
DJ Div. Motihari
Judge
3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 23-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1536
Police Station
COMPLAINT CASE
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MD YASHIN AND ORS
Adv. SHAILENDRA KUMAR JHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Order By CourtView PDF
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Md. Yashin and Md. Faisal Akhtar, who were accused of cheating and fraudulently obtaining Rs. 5,08,00,845 from an organization by falsely claiming to run permanent Madrasas and creating forged documents under IPC sections 406, 420, and 468. The court found the allegations serious in nature and concluded that granting anticipatory bail at that stage would be improper, noting that similar applications from co-accused had also been rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
19-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
16-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
07-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
31-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
13-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 178/2026
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Md. Yashin and Md. Faisal Akhtar, who were accused of cheating and fraudulently obtaining Rs. 5,08,00,845 from an organization by falsely claiming to run permanent Madrasas and creating forged documents under IPC sections 406, 420, and 468. The court found the allegations serious in nature and concluded that granting anticipatory bail at that stage would be improper, noting that similar applications from co-accused had also been rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts