MOHAMMAD SAGIR vs State of Bihar — 2861/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303,2,318,2,111,2. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010156182025

Filing Number

14679/2025

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

2861/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

3-ADJ-I

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

116

Police Station

KUCHAIKOT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303,2,318,2,111,2
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4/8

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHAMMAD SAGIR

    Adv. RAJESH KUMAR PATHAK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The District & Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Md. Sagir, who was accused of ATM tampering fraud under BNS sections 303(2), 318(2), and 111(2). The court found strong evidence against the petitioner, including CCTV footage showing his involvement, informant and co-accused statements supporting the prosecution, and classified the offense as a serious economic crime warranting denial of anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender and seek regular bail from the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ-I

  4. 19-Feb-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  5. 31-Jan-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  6. 12-Jan-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  7. 10-Jan-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  8. 18-Dec-2025

    Admission

    ADJ-I

  9. 17-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 16-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2861/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The District & Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Md. Sagir, who was accused of ATM tampering fraud under BNS sections 303(2), 318(2), and 111(2). The court found strong evidence against the petitioner, including CCTV footage showing his involvement, informant and co-accused statements supporting the prosecution, and classified the offense as a serious economic crime warranting denial of anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender and seek regular bail from the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case