MD SADIQUE vs STATE OF BIHAR — 139/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),126(2),127(2),115(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRKI010008182026

Filing Number

734/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

139/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Kishanganj

Judge

1-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

12

Police Station

KURLI KOTE

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),126(2),127(2),115(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MD SADIQUE

    Adv. MD. YOUSUF

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    Case 139/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj rejected MD SADIQUE's anticipatory bail petition in a rape case (Kurlikot P.S. case 12/2026). The court found serious rape allegations against the petitioner supported by witness statements and the victim's recorded statement under BNSS section 183, with investigation still pending. The petitioner's denials of innocence and claims of being in Maharashtra on the date of occurrence were insufficient to warrant anticipatory bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 139/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 139/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj rejected MD SADIQUE's anticipatory bail petition in a rape case (Kurlikot P.S. case 12/2026). The court found serious rape allegations against the petitioner supported by witness statements and the victim's recorded statement under BNSS section 183, with investigation still pending. The petitioner's denials of innocence and claims of being in Maharashtra on the date of occurrence were insufficient to warrant anticipatory bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case