PRAMOD BHAGAT vs State of Bihar — 372/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,118,1,303,2,109,3/5. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010020682026

Filing Number

1966/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

372/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

3-ADJ-I

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

638

Police Station

KATAIYA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,118,1,303,2,109,3/5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRAMOD BHAGAT

    Adv. RAMASHRAY SINGH

  2. 2.DANAGAL YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Pramod Bhagat and Dangal Yadav, who were accused of assaulting the informant and his nephew with deadly weapons, causing grievous injuries including a lacerated head wound. The court found the prosecution's case credible based on the informant's restatement and victim corroboration, and noted that one petitioner concealed his criminal antecedent of two prior cases, making them undeserving of bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ-I

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  6. 13-Feb-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 372/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Pramod Bhagat and Dangal Yadav, who were accused of assaulting the informant and his nephew with deadly weapons, causing grievous injuries including a lacerated head wound. The court found the prosecution's case credible based on the informant's restatement and victim corroboration, and noted that one petitioner concealed his criminal antecedent of two prior cases, making them undeserving of bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case