RAN SINGH vs State of Bihar Advocate - Jagdish Prasad sah — 225/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 87,143. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.
Regular Bail
CNR: BRKT010013132026
Filing Number
1124/2026
Filing Date
26-Feb-2026
Registration No
225/2026
Registration Date
26-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Katihar
Judge
20-District and Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge Mp/Mla
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
31
Police Station
RAUTARA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAN SINGH
Adv. SHEKH FIROZ
-
2.RAMOTAR URF RAMAVATAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar Advocate - Jagdish Prasad sah
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Order
Summary of Case 225/2026: The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar, granted bail to petitioners Ran Singh and Ramotar on charges under BNS sections 87/143 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The court found that while one petitioner was named in the FIR, the victim (a major) filed a compromise petition explicitly stating the petitioners were not involved in any purchase or sale, and refused medical examination. Given the petitioners' clean antecedent, cooperation willingness, no flight risk, and prolonged custody since February 4, 2026, the court deemed bail appropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge Mp/Mla
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge Mp/Mla
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 225/2026
Summary of Case 225/2026: The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar, granted bail to petitioners Ran Singh and Ramotar on charges under BNS sections 87/143 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The court found that while one petitioner was named in the FIR, the victim (a major) filed a compromise petition explicitly stating the petitioners were not involved in any purchase or sale, and refused medical examination. Given the petitioners' clean antecedent, cooperation willingness, no flight risk, and prolonged custody since February 4, 2026, the court deemed bail appropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts