State of Bihar vs Satendra Rai — 2/2001
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307/149. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th April 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRPA200000792001
Filing Number
2/2001
Filing Date
09-Apr-2018
Registration No
2/2001
Registration Date
09-Apr-2018
Court
DJ Div. Danapur
Judge
1-District and Additional Session Judge-I
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
149
Police Station
MANER
Year
1996
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Adv. N/A
Respondent(s)
-
1.Satendra Rai
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Satyendra Rai (2/2001) Decision: Satyendra Rai was acquitted of all charges under Sections 147, 148, 448, 324/149, 307/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's case fundamentally weak. Only one witness (PW1) was examined despite the case pending over five years for evidence; the informant, injured witnesses, investigating officer, and medical evidence were never presented. The single witness's testimony was self-contradictory, failed to identify multiple accused, and lacked corroboration. The court held the prosecution miserably failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
18-Mar-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
11-Feb-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
20-Jan-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
09-Jan-2026
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
09-Dec-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
25-Nov-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
16-Oct-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
15-Sep-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
19-Aug-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
01-Aug-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
14-Jul-2025
Arguments
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
30-Jun-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
09-Jun-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
24-May-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
02-May-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
21-Apr-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
19-Mar-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
18-Feb-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
24-Jan-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
04-Jan-2025
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
13-Dec-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
13-Nov-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
26-Sep-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
02-Aug-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
09-Jul-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
17-May-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
26-Apr-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
27-Feb-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
26-Feb-2024
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
20-Dec-2023
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
13-Oct-2023
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
10-Aug-2023
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
07-Jun-2023
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
06-Apr-2023
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
08-Feb-2023
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
12-Dec-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
19-Oct-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
20-Aug-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
28-Jun-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
05-May-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
03-Mar-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
07-Jan-2022
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
29-Nov-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
01-Nov-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
27-Aug-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
28-Jun-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
29-Apr-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
23-Feb-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
04-Jan-2021
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
26-Nov-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
14-Sep-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
13-Aug-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
18-Jun-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
16-Apr-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
16-Mar-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
25-Feb-2020
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
21-Dec-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
07-Nov-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
13-Sep-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
20-Jul-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
20-Jun-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
29-Apr-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
06-Mar-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
08-Feb-2019
Appearence
District and Additional Session Judge-I
-
06-Dec-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Apr-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 2/2001
Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Satyendra Rai (2/2001) Decision: Satyendra Rai was acquitted of all charges under Sections 147, 148, 448, 324/149, 307/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's case fundamentally weak. Only one witness (PW1) was examined despite the case pending over five years for evidence; the informant, injured witnesses, investigating officer, and medical evidence were never presented. The single witness's testimony was self-contradictory, failed to identify multiple accused, and lacked corroboration. The court held the prosecution miserably failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts