SUDISH MAHTO vs State of Bihar — 486/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,118,2,109,351,3,352,74,76,3,5. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010028032026

Case disposed

Filing Number

2660/2026

Filing Date

24-02-2026

Registration No

486/2026

Registration Date

24-02-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

26

Police Station

SIDHWALIA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,118,2,109,351,3,352,74,76,3,5

Petitioner(s)

SUDISH MAHTO

Adv. JAHANGIR ALAM

SUNITA DEVI

MEENA DEVI

SARSWATI DEVI

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge

12-03-2026

Disposed

25-02-2026

ADMISSION

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Order

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to three female petitioners (Sunita Devi, Meena Devi, and Sarswati Devi) in a case involving charges of assault and theft arising from a drainage water dispute. The court found insufficient specific allegations against these women and noted a two-day delay in FIR filing without cogent reason, coupled with their clean criminal records. However, bail was denied to petitioner Sudish Mahto, against whom specific allegations of inflicting a farsa blow existed, with directions to surrender and seek regular bail before the lower court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to three female petitioners (Sunita Devi, Meena Devi, and Sarswati Devi) in a case involving charges of assault and theft arising from a drainage water dispute. The court found insufficient specific allegations against these women and noted a two-day delay in FIR filing without cogent reason, coupled with their clean criminal records. However, bail was denied to petitioner Sudish Mahto, against whom specific allegations of inflicting a farsa blow existed, with directions to surrender and seek regular bail before the lower court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Gopalganj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case