Sunil Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar — 194/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Rev. - Criminal Revision

CNR: BRPA010045052026

Filing Number

3917/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

194/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Patna Sadar

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

6091

Police Station

Complaint Private

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunil Kumar Singh

    Adv. Barunendra Prasad Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

  2. 2.Smt. Babi Singh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge dismissed the accused's criminal revision seeking to recall the complainant witness under Section 311 CrPC, finding that adequate opportunity for cross-examination had already been afforded and the accused failed to seek adjournment when needed or justify new circumstances warranting recall. The court concluded the revision was devoid of merit as no justification existed under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Order

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 19-Mar-2026

    Hearing On Admission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing On Admission

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 194/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge dismissed the accused's criminal revision seeking to recall the complainant witness under Section 311 CrPC, finding that adequate opportunity for cross-examination had already been afforded and the accused failed to seek adjournment when needed or justify new circumstances warranting recall. The court concluded the revision was devoid of merit as no justification existed under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case