BRIJ KISHORE YADAV vs State of Bihar — 17/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 408. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Mislaneous

CNR: BREC010038672026

Filing Number

3588/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

17/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

1-Principal District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

81

Police Station

ADAPUR

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 408

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BRIJ KISHORE YADAV

    Adv. RUPNARAYAN YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Order By CourtView PDF

    The Sessions Judge granted the petitioner's request and transferred Sessions Trial No. 381 of 2016 from the 19th Additional Sessions Judge to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari. The court found that both trials (No. 381 of 2016 and No. 1527 of 2018) are related case and counter-case arising from FIRs 81 and 82 of 2014, and consolidating them under one judge serves the interests of justice and ensures consistent adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and sessions Judge

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 17/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge granted the petitioner's request and transferred Sessions Trial No. 381 of 2016 from the 19th Additional Sessions Judge to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari. The court found that both trials (No. 381 of 2016 and No. 1527 of 2018) are related case and counter-case arising from FIRs 81 and 82 of 2014, and consolidating them under one judge serves the interests of justice and ensures consistent adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case