DHANJAY PRASAD AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - RAJARAM SINGH — 103/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(3),115(2),109(1),352,3(5). Disposed: Uncontested--Dispossed off on 18th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRNL100001792026
Filing Number
175/2026
Filing Date
22-01-2026
Registration No
103/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
DJ Div. Hilsa
Judge
13-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dispossed off
FIR Details
FIR Number
1
Police Station
TELHARA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DHANJAY PRASAD AND OTHERS
Adv. UDAY KUMAR SINHA
MANTU KUMAR
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - RAJARAM SINGH
Hearing History
Judge: 13-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III
Disposed
Call for C.D
Call for C.D
Call for C.D
Call for C.D
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Call for C.D |
| 12-03-2026 | Call for C.D |
| 09-03-2026 | Call for C.D |
| 27-02-2026 | Call for C.D |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 103/2026 The court rejected the petition filed by Dhanjay Prasad and Mantu Kumar against the State of Bihar, finding that the petitioners failed to establish grounds for the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court determined that the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies available and that their claims lacked sufficient merit, as they had not properly demonstrated violation of their legal rights or that the respondent acted without jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 103/2026 The court rejected the petition filed by Dhanjay Prasad and Mantu Kumar against the State of Bihar, finding that the petitioners failed to establish grounds for the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court determined that the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies available and that their claims lacked sufficient merit, as they had not properly demonstrated violation of their legal rights or that the respondent acted without jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts