MUHPHUJ DEWAN vs State of Bihar — 264/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317,5,111. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRGO010044532026

Filing Number

4233/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

264/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

24-ADJ-IX

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

83

Police Station

GOPALPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317,5,111
Cruelty to Animals Act (Bengal) Section 11(D)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUHPHUJ DEWAN

    Adv. DILIP KR. PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: 264/2026 - Mahphuj Dewan v. State of Bihar The court granted bail to Mahphuj Dewan, who was arrested in connection with alleged cattle smuggling under Sections 317(5), 111 BNS, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act provisions. The court found that no incriminating evidence was recovered from the petitioner's possession, no ingredients of Section 111 BNS appeared in the record, and the petitioner had remained in custody since March 9, 2026. Accordingly, bail was allowed on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, with one surety being a close relative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ-IX

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-IX

  5. 13-Apr-2026

    Admission

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 264/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 264/2026 - Mahphuj Dewan v. State of Bihar The court granted bail to Mahphuj Dewan, who was arrested in connection with alleged cattle smuggling under Sections 317(5), 111 BNS, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act provisions. The court found that no incriminating evidence was recovered from the petitioner's possession, no ingredients of Section 111 BNS appeared in the record, and the petitioner had remained in custody since March 9, 2026. Accordingly, bail was allowed on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, with one surety being a close relative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case