VIJAY YADAV vs State of Bihar — 263/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,303,2,109,351,2,352,3/5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRGO010044512026

Filing Number

4231/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

263/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

51

Police Station

YADAWPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126,2,115,2,303,2,109,351,2,352,3/5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIJAY YADAV

    Adv. RAJEEV KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Order

    Case 263/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj granted bail to Vijay Yadav, who was accused of assaulting the informant's daughter, theft, and related offenses under B.N.S. sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109, 351(2), and 352/3(5). The court found that the incident arose from an electricity wire dispute, the theft allegation was ornamental, both parties had compromised the case, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since March 11, 2026. Bail was granted upon furnishing Rs. 10,000 bonds with two sureties of equal amount, with conditions that one surety be a close relative and one be local, and the petitioner cooperate in investigation/trial without tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Admission

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 263/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 263/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj granted bail to Vijay Yadav, who was accused of assaulting the informant's daughter, theft, and related offenses under B.N.S. sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109, 351(2), and 352/3(5). The court found that the incident arose from an electricity wire dispute, the theft allegation was ornamental, both parties had compromised the case, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since March 11, 2026. Bail was granted upon furnishing Rs. 10,000 bonds with two sureties of equal amount, with conditions that one surety be a close relative and one be local, and the petitioner cooperate in investigation/trial without tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case