Rajat Raj vs State of Bihar — 1013/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 338,336(3)340(2)319(2)318(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 04th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail - ABP

CNR: BRPA010047502026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

4137/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1013/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Patna Sadar

Judge

134-Dasj XXX

Decision Date

04-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

8

Police Station

SACHIVALAYA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 338,336(3)340(2)319(2)318(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajat Raj

    Adv. ROSHAN KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Rajat Raj, who was accused of involvement in a recruitment fraud scheme involving forged documents and fake joining letters. The court found that despite the petitioner's claim of being a mere bystander, case diary evidence indicated he was an active participant who arranged multiple victims and executed the fraudulent scheme, warranting denial of bail under established Supreme Court principles requiring a strict approach in economic offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Dasj XXX

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj XXX

  5. 28-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj XXX

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj XXX

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj XXX

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1013/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Rajat Raj, who was accused of involvement in a recruitment fraud scheme involving forged documents and fake joining letters. The court found that despite the petitioner's claim of being a mere bystander, case diary evidence indicated he was an active participant who arranged multiple victims and executed the fraudulent scheme, warranting denial of bail under established Supreme Court principles requiring a strict approach in economic offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case