Devo Mahton Ands Others vs State Of Bihar — 111/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 16th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRKH010009402026
Filing Number
897/2026
Filing Date
30-Jan-2026
Registration No
111/2026
Registration Date
30-Jan-2026
Court
DJ Div. Khagaria
Judge
3-District and Additional Sessions Judge -I
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
12
Police Station
ALAULI
Year
2008
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Devo Mahton Ands Others
Adv. Niraj Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed offView PDF
Case Summary: 111/2026 - Devo Mahton & Others v. State of Bihar The District and Sessions Court dismissed the petition challenging a First Information Report (FIR) filed under IPC Sections 341, 323, 308, and 504/34. The court found the FIR was properly registered based on credible allegations and rejected arguments that the petitioner/accused had no criminal liability. The court directed that if the petitioner wishes to challenge the FIR further, they should pursue appropriate remedies through established judicial procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge -I
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge -I
-
25-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge -I
-
16-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge -I
-
04-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge -I
-
02-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 111/2026
Case Summary: 111/2026 - Devo Mahton & Others v. State of Bihar The District and Sessions Court dismissed the petition challenging a First Information Report (FIR) filed under IPC Sections 341, 323, 308, and 504/34. The court found the FIR was properly registered based on credible allegations and rejected arguments that the petitioner/accused had no criminal liability. The court directed that if the petitioner wishes to challenge the FIR further, they should pursue appropriate remedies through established judicial procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts