ANKIT RAJ vs State of Bihar — 570/2026

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

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010016292026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1495/2026

Filing Date

27-01-2026

Registration No

570/2026

Registration Date

28-01-2026

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

209

Police Station

MOTIHARI TOWN/NAGAR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

ANKIT RAJ

Adv. ARUN PRAKASH UPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and sessions Judge

10-03-2026

Disposed

25-02-2026

HEARING

19-02-2026

HEARING

09-02-2026

HEARING

29-01-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Order By Court

The Sessions Judge rejected Ankit Raj's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found sufficient corroborating evidence in the case diary, including bank statements and witness testimony confirming that the petitioner and co-accused took ₹20 lakhs from the informant for a medicine stockist arrangement but neither delivered the promised stockist nor returned the money, and subsequently threatened the complainant. The rejection was also based on the petitioner's multiple criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge rejected Ankit Raj's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found sufficient corroborating evidence in the case diary, including bank statements and witness testimony confirming that the petitioner and co-accused took ₹20 lakhs from the informant for a medicine stockist arrangement but neither delivered the promised stockist nor returned the money, and subsequently threatened the complainant. The rejection was also based on the petitioner's multiple criminal antecedents. 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