MOHIT AGARWAL ALIAS GOLLU vs STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA — 317/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4),310(2),308,351,61,198,115(2),126(2),120,201. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRGA010031232026
Filing Number
2966/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
317/2026
Registration Date
17-02-2026
Court
Gaya DJ Div.
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
334
Police Station
RLY PATNA GAYA JN
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MOHIT AGARWAL ALIAS GOLLU
Adv. ASHOK KUMAR
Respondent(s)
STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
BAIL MATTERS
BAIL MATTERS
BAIL MATTERS
BAIL MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | BAIL MATTERS |
| 28-02-2026 | BAIL MATTERS |
| 21-02-2026 | BAIL MATTERS |
| 19-02-2026 | BAIL MATTERS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Mohit Agarwal @ Golu vs. State of Bihar (B.P. No. 317/2026) The Sessions Judge granted bail to Mohit Agarwal, accused in a gold snatching case, finding only suspicion against him rather than direct evidence. The court noted that while other co-accused had clear involvement, materials against the petitioner were insufficient—his name emerged solely from mobile connectivity with another person, the victim's allegations targeted different individuals, and crucial statements were missing from the case diary. The judge balanced individual liberty against prosecution interests and released him on Rs. 30,000 bail with two sureties of equal amount, conditional on full cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Mohit Agarwal @ Golu vs. State of Bihar (B.P. No. 317/2026) The Sessions Judge granted bail to Mohit Agarwal, accused in a gold snatching case, finding only suspicion against him rather than direct evidence. The court noted that while other co-accused had clear involvement, materials against the petitioner were insufficient—his name emerged solely from mobile connectivity with another person, the victim's allegations targeted different individuals, and crucial statements were missing from the case diary. The judge balanced individual liberty against prosecution interests and released him on Rs. 30,000 bail with two sureties of equal amount, conditional on full cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts