ROHIT GIRI vs State of Bihar — 1124/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010037442026

Filing Number

3479/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

1124/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

259

Police Station

PAKRI DAYAL

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROHIT GIRI

    Adv. ANKIT KASHYAP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Order By Court

    The Sessions Judge dismissed Rohit Giri's anticipatory bail petition as unmaintainable because a process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. had been executed against him, making him a proclaimed offender. The court found that since the petitioner was evading the court's process despite being charged under BNS Section 109 and Arms Act sections for alleged involvement in an armed attack, anticipatory bail was no longer an appropriate remedy. 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. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1124/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge dismissed Rohit Giri's anticipatory bail petition as unmaintainable because a process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. had been executed against him, making him a proclaimed offender. The court found that since the petitioner was evading the court's process despite being charged under BNS Section 109 and Arms Act sections for alleged involvement in an armed attack, anticipatory bail was no longer an appropriate remedy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case