ABDUL RAHMAN vs State of Bihar — 7/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 448. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECT on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Mislaneous

CNR: BREC010013342026

Filing Number

1214/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

7/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECT

Last updated 15-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 448

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABDUL RAHMAN

    Adv. WOZAIR AHMAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Order By CourtView PDF

    Case 7/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge dismissed Abdul Rahman's petition seeking transfer of his trial (Trial No.498 of 2025) from the ACJM-VIII court. Rahman, a 70-year-old suffering from illness, had challenged the trial court's rejection of his Section 317 CrPC petition (exempting him from physical appearance) and the directive to remain physically present at each hearing. The court found the grounds for transfer insufficient and held that the trial court's attendance requirement was neither excessive nor harsh, thus lacking merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  6. 03-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  7. 24-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 7/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 7/2026 Summary: The Sessions Judge dismissed Abdul Rahman's petition seeking transfer of his trial (Trial No.498 of 2025) from the ACJM-VIII court. Rahman, a 70-year-old suffering from illness, had challenged the trial court's rejection of his Section 317 CrPC petition (exempting him from physical appearance) and the directive to remain physically present at each hearing. The court found the grounds for transfer insufficient and held that the trial court's attendance requirement was neither excessive nor harsh, thus lacking merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case