DHARMSHILA DEVI vs State of Bihar Advocate - Advocate — 603/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRPA400011412025

Filing Number

1086/2025

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

603/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

Court

Masaurhi DJ Division

Judge

1-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

517

Police Station

DHANARUA

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHARMSHILA DEVI

    Adv. LALLU PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - Advocate

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court rejected Dharmshila Devi's anticipatory bail petition in a serious murder case involving a 12-year-old boy. The judge found the allegations grave, noted the supervisory authority confirmed the case against the petitioner, and observed the investigation was ongoing with evidence of head injury from blunt force, making anticipatory bail inappropriate despite the petitioner's clean criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  8. 18-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  9. 17-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 16-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 603/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Dharmshila Devi's anticipatory bail petition in a serious murder case involving a 12-year-old boy. The judge found the allegations grave, noted the supervisory authority confirmed the case against the petitioner, and observed the investigation was ongoing with evidence of head injury from blunt force, making anticipatory bail inappropriate despite the petitioner's clean criminal record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case