MITU YADAV vs STATE OF BIHAR — 80/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 140(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
REGULAR BAIL
CNR: BRJA010007292026
Filing Number
669/2026
Filing Date
31-Jan-2026
Registration No
80/2026
Registration Date
31-Jan-2026
Court
DJ Div. Jamui
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 18-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
462
Police Station
JHAJHA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MITU YADAV
Adv. ASHOK PRASAD KESHRI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF BIHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
Bail OrderView PDF
Summary: The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamui, rejected the bail applications of Mitu Yadav and Vijay Kumar in a kidnapping and ransom case (Jhajha P.S. Case No.462/2025). The court found the charges serious, noting the accused had prior criminal records, confessed during investigation, and were identified by the victim in a Test Identification Parade, making their continued custody justified despite defense arguments of false implication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
28-Feb-2026
Hearing.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
25-Feb-2026
Hearing.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
19-Feb-2026
Hearing.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
09-Feb-2026
Hearing.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jamui
-
03-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
31-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 80/2026
Summary: The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jamui, rejected the bail applications of Mitu Yadav and Vijay Kumar in a kidnapping and ransom case (Jhajha P.S. Case No.462/2025). The court found the charges serious, noting the accused had prior criminal records, confessed during investigation, and were identified by the victim in a Test Identification Parade, making their continued custody justified despite defense arguments of false implication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts