Ajit Yadav vs State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 300/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),109(1),352. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRNL010008712026
Filing Number
775/2026
Filing Date
10-02-2026
Registration No
300/2026
Registration Date
10-02-2026
Court
Nalanda DJ Div.
Judge
3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
83
Police Station
CHHABILAPUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajit Yadav
Adv. PRAMOD KUMAR
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 23-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Ajit Yadav v. State of Bihar (Case 300/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Ajit Yadav, who was accused of firing at a person and his family over a land dispute on June 13, 2025, in Chhabilapur, Bihar. The defense argued the charges were baseless and that the allegations of specific assault or firing were not substantiated, while co-accused had already obtained bail from the High Court. The court found no specific evidence of firing or assault against the petitioner and noted no prior criminal history, observing the dispute was general in nature with no injuries caused. Accordingly, bail was granted with conditions including a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of equal amount, with the petitioner required to surrender before the cognizance court within one month or face police custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Ajit Yadav v. State of Bihar (Case 300/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Ajit Yadav, who was accused of firing at a person and his family over a land dispute on June 13, 2025, in Chhabilapur, Bihar. The defense argued the charges were baseless and that the allegations of specific assault or firing were not substantiated, while co-accused had already obtained bail from the High Court. The court found no specific evidence of firing or assault against the petitioner and noted no prior criminal history, observing the dispute was general in nature with no injuries caused. Accordingly, bail was granted with conditions including a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of equal amount, with the petitioner required to surrender before the cognizance court within one month or face police custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts