Chinta Devi vs State of Bihar — 1015/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,323,379. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail - ABP

CNR: BRPA010047532026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

4140/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1015/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Patna Sadar

Judge

75-Dasj IV

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1450

Police Station

Complaint Private

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,323,379

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Chinta Devi

    Adv. Sanjay Kr Sinha

  2. 2.Sudeshwar Vishwarma

    Adv. Sanjay Kr Sinha

  3. 3.Pankaj Kumar

    Adv. Sanjay Kr Sinha

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Copy of Order

    The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Chinta Devi, Sudeshwar Mistry, and Pankaj Kumar in a case involving alleged cheating and theft. The court found the allegations serious in nature, as the petitioners allegedly obtained Rs. 18 lakhs from the complainant through fraudulent execution of a land sale deed without providing possession or refund, and the petitioner refused to surrender the land even when present before the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Dasj IV

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    Dasj IV

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Notice

    Dasj IV

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    IA order

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Awaiting for L. C. R.

    Dasj IV

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1015/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Chinta Devi, Sudeshwar Mistry, and Pankaj Kumar in a case involving alleged cheating and theft. The court found the allegations serious in nature, as the petitioners allegedly obtained Rs. 18 lakhs from the complainant through fraudulent execution of a land sale deed without providing possession or refund, and the petitioner refused to surrender the land even when present before the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case