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
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
Petitioner(s)
ANKIT RAJ
Adv. ARUN PRAKASH UPADHYAY
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and sessions Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 19-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 09-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 29-01-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts