RAHUL PASWAN AND ORS vs State of Bihar — 650/2026

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

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010019422026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1789/2026

Filing Date

30-01-2026

Registration No

650/2026

Registration Date

31-01-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

437

Police Station

KALAYANPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

RAHUL PASWAN AND ORS

Adv. DR.ADHIR KUMAR

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and sessions Judge

10-03-2026

Disposed

26-02-2026

HEARING

21-02-2026

HEARING

12-02-2026

HEARING

02-02-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Order By Court

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court of East Champaran granted anticipatory bail to nine accused persons (Rahul Paswan and eight others) in a case involving charges under IPC sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 74, 109, 303(2), 351(2), and 352/3(5). The court found that the charges of murder (IPC 109), outraging modesty (IPC 74), and criminal intimidation (IPC 303(2)) were not substantiated, and considering the parties' reconciliation, mutual settlement agreement with photographic evidence, and the applicants' clean criminal history, bail was approved. The accused were directed to furnish a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties and cooperate during investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court of East Champaran granted anticipatory bail to nine accused persons (Rahul Paswan and eight others) in a case involving charges under IPC sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 74, 109, 303(2), 351(2), and 352/3(5). The court found that the charges of murder (IPC 109), outraging modesty (IPC 74), and criminal intimidation (IPC 303(2)) were not substantiated, and considering the parties' reconciliation, mutual settlement agreement with photographic evidence, and the applicants' clean criminal history, bail was approved. The accused were directed to furnish a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties and cooperate during investigation. 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