Mosmat Malti Devi vs State of Bihar — 1095/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),303(2),308(3),352. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail - ABP
CNR: BRPA010051042026
e-Filing Number
17-03-2026
Filing Number
4435/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
1095/2026
Registration Date
17-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Patna Sadar
Judge
116-Dasj XVI
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1313
Police Station
PHULWARI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Mosmat Malti Devi
Adv. Jitendra Kumar Bharti
-
2.rajesh prasad rai alias biltu gope
Adv. Jitendra Kumar Bharti
-
3.bajrangi kumar
Adv. Jitendra Kumar Bharti
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: A.B.P. No. 1095 of 2026 The court granted anticipatory bail to all three petitioners (Malti Devi, Rajesh Prasad Rai, and Bajrangi Kumar) in a land dispute case. The petitioners were accused of assault, theft of Rs. 12,000, and threats arising from a property dispute where they allegedly continued construction despite a Janta Darbar directive. The court found that most charges were bailable offences, the underlying dispute was primarily civil in nature with ongoing litigation, and criminal antecedents alone cannot justify bail rejection when considering offence severity. Released on Rs. 10,000 bail bonds with two sureties each, subject to cooperation with investigation and trial attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
Disposed
Dasj XVI
-
20-Apr-2026
Order
Dasj XVI
-
09-Apr-2026
Hearing
Dasj XVI
-
06-Apr-2026
Hearing
Dasj XVI
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
Dasj XVI
-
18-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1095/2026
Case Summary: A.B.P. No. 1095 of 2026 The court granted anticipatory bail to all three petitioners (Malti Devi, Rajesh Prasad Rai, and Bajrangi Kumar) in a land dispute case. The petitioners were accused of assault, theft of Rs. 12,000, and threats arising from a property dispute where they allegedly continued construction despite a Janta Darbar directive. The court found that most charges were bailable offences, the underlying dispute was primarily civil in nature with ongoing litigation, and criminal antecedents alone cannot justify bail rejection when considering offence severity. Released on Rs. 10,000 bail bonds with two sureties each, subject to cooperation with investigation and trial attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts