KATIL AKHATAR ALIAS SIPAHI MIAN AND ORS vs State of Bihar — 512/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 10th March 2026.

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010014322026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1304/2026

Filing Date

22-01-2026

Registration No

512/2026

Registration Date

27-01-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

FIR Details

FIR Number

708

Police Station

HARSIDHI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

KATIL AKHATAR ALIAS SIPAHI MIAN AND ORS

Adv. PREM RANJAN PANDEY

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and sessions Judge

10-03-2026

Disposed

26-02-2026

HEARING

18-02-2026

HEARING

07-02-2026

HEARING

28-01-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Order By Court

Summary The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Katil Akhtar @ Sipahi Mian and Maujam Arif, who were accused of murdering Mansaf Ali during a Panchayat election dispute. The court found sufficient incriminating evidence in the case diary, including a co-accused's confession, recovery of the murder weapon, and postmortem findings confirming death by firearm, coupled with the petitioners' prior criminal record. The court also directed police to explain why the petitioners' criminal antecedent was not mentioned in the original case diary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Katil Akhtar @ Sipahi Mian and Maujam Arif, who were accused of murdering Mansaf Ali during a Panchayat election dispute. The court found sufficient incriminating evidence in the case diary, including a co-accused's confession, recovery of the murder weapon, and postmortem findings confirming death by firearm, coupled with the petitioners' prior criminal record. The court also directed police to explain why the petitioners' criminal antecedent was not mentioned in the original case diary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Motihari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case