RAMGYA THAKUR AND ORS vs State of Bihar — 1272/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BREC010042972026

Filing Number

3994/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

1272/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Motihari

Judge

18-District and Addl. Sessions Judge 8th

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

70

Police Station

PIPRA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMGYA THAKUR AND ORS

    Adv. NAGENDRA SAHANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Order By Court

    The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by six petitioners accused of offenses including criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found that the petitioners were directly named in the FIR, witnesses had fully supported the prosecution's allegations, injury reports were available on record, and the investigation was ongoing, making denial of anticipatory bail appropriate given the gravity of the offenses alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 8th

  4. 25-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 8th

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 8th

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 8th

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 8th

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1272/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by six petitioners accused of offenses including criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found that the petitioners were directly named in the FIR, witnesses had fully supported the prosecution's allegations, injury reports were available on record, and the investigation was ongoing, making denial of anticipatory bail appropriate given the gravity of the offenses alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case