Vijay Yadav Alias Bijo Yadav vs State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 253/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317(2),309(4). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRNL010011892026

Filing Number

1035/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

253/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

Nalanda DJ Div.

Judge

3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 08-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

263

Police Station

GIRIAK

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317(2),309(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vijay Yadav Alias Bijo Yadav

    Adv. Kamesh Prasad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court granted bail to accused Vijay Yadav on a regular bail petition under sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the BNS, setting bail amount at ₹10,000 with two sureties of equal value. The court found that while the accused had been in judicial custody since February 5, 2026 (approximately eight months), no theft charge was formally lodged against him, and the case was based on suspicion rather than substantive evidence, warranting his interim release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 253/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted bail to accused Vijay Yadav on a regular bail petition under sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the BNS, setting bail amount at ₹10,000 with two sureties of equal value. The court found that while the accused had been in judicial custody since February 5, 2026 (approximately eight months), no theft charge was formally lodged against him, and the case was based on suspicion rather than substantive evidence, warranting his interim release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case