Raj Rajesh Kumar Nayan vs State of Bihar — 2197/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2)85,89,316,351(2),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 20th June 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail - ABP

CNR: BRPA010097842026

e-Filing Number

22-05-2026

Filing Number

9928/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

2197/2026

Registration Date

22-May-2026

Court

DJ Div. Patna Sadar

Judge

122-Dasj II

Decision Date

20-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

39

Police Station

Mahila Thana

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2)85,89,316,351(2),352,3(5)
Dowry Prohibition (D.p) Act Section 3,4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Raj Rajesh Kumar Nayan

    Adv. Nageshwar Prasad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Jun-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The court granted anticipatory bail to Raj Rajesh Kumar Nayan provisionally for three months after finding that the petitioner and his wife (the informant) desired to live together despite allegations of dowry demands and harassment under BNS sections. The court also released his relatives (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law) on anticipatory bail, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement in the alleged dowry offense, with confirmation subject to the couple's continued cohabitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Dasj II

  4. 15-Jun-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj II

  5. 10-Jun-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj II

  6. 26-May-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj II

  7. 25-May-2026

    Hearing

    Dasj II

  8. 23-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2197/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted anticipatory bail to Raj Rajesh Kumar Nayan provisionally for three months after finding that the petitioner and his wife (the informant) desired to live together despite allegations of dowry demands and harassment under BNS sections. The court also released his relatives (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law) on anticipatory bail, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement in the alleged dowry offense, with confirmation subject to the couple's continued cohabitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case