Sangeeta Devi vs State of Bihar — 409/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),109,352,351(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 04th May 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRPA200012192026
Filing Number
1115/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
409/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Danapur
Judge
5-District and Addl. Sessions Judge- IV
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
87
Police Station
KHAGAUL
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangeeta Devi
Adv. Nabab Lal Yadav
Sunita Devi
Ramesh Kumar
Sheo raj
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 5-District and Addl. Sessions Judge- IV
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-04-2026 | ORDER |
| 24-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 04-04-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by four petitioners (Sangeeta Devi, Sunita Devi, Ramesh Kumar, and Sheo Raj) in a case involving allegations of assault arising from a property dispute. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioners based on specific allegations of their participation in the assault that caused head injuries to the informant and her son, and noted that investigation was still in progress. The court rejected the parity argument with co-accused Satan Ray, holding that regular bail and anticipatory bail are governed by distinct considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by four petitioners (Sangeeta Devi, Sunita Devi, Ramesh Kumar, and Sheo Raj) in a case involving allegations of assault arising from a property dispute. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioners based on specific allegations of their participation in the assault that caused head injuries to the informant and her son, and noted that investigation was still in progress. The court rejected the parity argument with co-accused Satan Ray, holding that regular bail and anticipatory bail are governed by distinct considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts