Suman Yadav vs State Of Bihar — 272/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRKH010021782026

Filing Number

2081/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

272/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Khagaria

Judge

3-District and Additional Sessions Judge -I

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

55

Police Station

RLY P.S KHAGARIA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Suman Yadav

    Adv. Mukesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    AllowedView PDF

    Case Summary: 272/2026 - Suman Yadav v. State of Bihar The court rejected Suman Yadav's petition challenging the legality of his arrest and detention under Sections 303(2), 317(5) BNS, finding that the petitioner failed to establish any procedural violations or unlawful custody. The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and that his detention was lawfully authorized, dismissing the plea for bail and protection. The court ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000 as costs and directed that he remain in custody as per law, with instructions that any future bail applications be filed before the appropriate courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Additional Sessions Judge -I

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 272/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 272/2026 - Suman Yadav v. State of Bihar The court rejected Suman Yadav's petition challenging the legality of his arrest and detention under Sections 303(2), 317(5) BNS, finding that the petitioner failed to establish any procedural violations or unlawful custody. The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and that his detention was lawfully authorized, dismissing the plea for bail and protection. The court ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000 as costs and directed that he remain in custody as per law, with instructions that any future bail applications be filed before the appropriate courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case