Ravi Kumar vs State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 21/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397,399,401. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRI. REVISION

CNR: BRNL010013812026

Filing Number

1203/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

21/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

Nalanda DJ Div.

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED AS NON-MAINTAINABLE

Last updated 08-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

107

Police Station

Official Complaint

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397,399,401

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ravi Kumar

    Adv. ASHRAF YUSUF KHAN

  2. 2.Birendra Kumar alias Birendra Prasad

  3. 3.Ruby Kumari Ruby Devi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - Public Prosecutor

  2. 2.Khushbu Kumari

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalanda dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Ravi Kumar and others at the admission stage itself, holding that the revision was barred by law of limitation as it was filed with a delay of 126 days without satisfactory explanation. The court found that while limitation provisions may be applied with some latitude in criminal matters, the petitioners failed to provide any bona fide or convincing reason for the delay, making the application for condonation of delay liable to rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 21/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalanda dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Ravi Kumar and others at the admission stage itself, holding that the revision was barred by law of limitation as it was filed with a delay of 126 days without satisfactory explanation. The court found that while limitation provisions may be applied with some latitude in criminal matters, the petitioners failed to provide any bona fide or convincing reason for the delay, making the application for condonation of delay liable to rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case