BIGAN RAM vs State of Bihar — 6265/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 10th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BREC010218182025
Filing Number
19955/2025
Filing Date
19-Dec-2025
Registration No
6265/2025
Registration Date
20-Dec-2025
Court
DJ Div. Motihari
Judge
3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 07-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
196
Police Station
PATAHI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BIGAN RAM
Adv. RAJ KUMAR THAKUR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
Order By Court
The District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, East Champaran rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Bigan Ram, who was accused of kidnapping a minor girl for marriage along with co-accused persons under BNS sections 137(2), 87, and 3(5). The court found the allegations serious in nature, with investigation witnesses corroborating the FIR version and the victim confirmed as a minor, making the court unwilling to grant bail given the gravity of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
24-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
19-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
09-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
29-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
09-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
08-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st
-
22-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 6265/2025
The District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, East Champaran rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Bigan Ram, who was accused of kidnapping a minor girl for marriage along with co-accused persons under BNS sections 137(2), 87, and 3(5). The court found the allegations serious in nature, with investigation witnesses corroborating the FIR version and the victim confirmed as a minor, making the court unwilling to grant bail given the gravity of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts