SUSHILA DEVI vs State of Bihar — 718/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329,3,126,2,115,2,118,1,109,352,3/5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th June 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRGO010044502026
Filing Number
4230/2026
Filing Date
24-Mar-2026
Registration No
718/2026
Registration Date
24-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Gopalganj
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
09-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 11-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
288
Police Station
GOPALGANJ NAGAR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUSHILA DEVI
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
-
2.MAMATA KUMARI
-
3.VIKASH SINGH
-
4.JAIRAM SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Jun-2026
Order
Case 718/2026 Summary The court granted anticipatory bail to Sushila Devi, Mamata Kumari, and Vikash Singh in a land dispute case involving assault allegations. The judge found that while specific allegations existed only against Sushila Devi, charges against other petitioners were vague and general, and the matter appeared to be a free-fighting dispute between neighboring landowners with a history of mutual cases. Bail was granted on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses and cooperation in investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Jun-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
25-May-2026
Awaiting for Case Diary
District and Sessions Judge
-
08-May-2026
Awaiting for Case Diary
District and Sessions Judge
-
23-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. 718/2026
Case 718/2026 Summary The court granted anticipatory bail to Sushila Devi, Mamata Kumari, and Vikash Singh in a land dispute case involving assault allegations. The judge found that while specific allegations existed only against Sushila Devi, charges against other petitioners were vague and general, and the matter appeared to be a free-fighting dispute between neighboring landowners with a history of mutual cases. Bail was granted on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses and cooperation in investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts