MOHAMMAD CHAND vs State of Bihar — 716/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,118,1,117,2,109,1,303,2,351,2,3/5. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 23rd April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRGO010044482026
Filing Number
4228/2026
Filing Date
24-Mar-2026
Registration No
716/2026
Registration Date
24-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Gopalganj
Judge
25-ADJ-X
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 11-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
85
Police Station
MAJHAGARH
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MOHAMMAD CHAND
Adv. SHAILESH KR. TIWARY
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2026
Order
The court dismissed Mohammad Chand's bail application filed under Case No. 716/2026 in connection with FIR No. 85/2026 at Manjhagarh Police Station, Bihar. Chand was accused of attacking a man with an iron rod on his head, causing a lacerated wound, along with co-accused who assaulted the victim and his sister with sticks and weapons. The court found the charges serious, noted Chand's criminal history, and determined that bail was not justified given the gravity of the offenses under IPC Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), and 3(5). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
Disposed
ADJ-X
-
13-Apr-2026
Awaiting for Case Diary
ADJ-X
-
10-Apr-2026
Awaiting for Case Diary
District and Sessions Judge
-
08-Apr-2026
Awaiting for Case Diary
District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 716/2026
The court dismissed Mohammad Chand's bail application filed under Case No. 716/2026 in connection with FIR No. 85/2026 at Manjhagarh Police Station, Bihar. Chand was accused of attacking a man with an iron rod on his head, causing a lacerated wound, along with co-accused who assaulted the victim and his sister with sticks and weapons. The court found the charges serious, noted Chand's criminal history, and determined that bail was not justified given the gravity of the offenses under IPC Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), and 3(5). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts