RAM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY vs STATE — 248/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3),340(2)3(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRPU010021442026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

1995/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

248/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Purnea

Judge

4-2nd Dasj

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 04-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

591

Police Station

PURNEA SADAR

Year

26

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3),340(2)3(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY

    Adv. MD SHAMSHER ALAM

  2. 2.RANJIT CHOHDARY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, rejected the bail petition of Ram Prakash Choudhary and Ranjit Choudhary, who were accused of selling duplicate/defective pesticides and insecticides without valid licenses under BNS sections and Trade Mark/Copyright Acts. The court found sufficient evidence against the accused, including recovery of counterfeit products from their possession witnessed by independent witnesses, absence of valid selling licenses, and a submitted charge sheet, concluding that the risk of evidence tampering and public harm warranted continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Dasj

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 248/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, rejected the bail petition of Ram Prakash Choudhary and Ranjit Choudhary, who were accused of selling duplicate/defective pesticides and insecticides without valid licenses under BNS sections and Trade Mark/Copyright Acts. The court found sufficient evidence against the accused, including recovery of counterfeit products from their possession witnessed by independent witnesses, absence of valid selling licenses, and a submitted charge sheet, concluding that the risk of evidence tampering and public harm warranted continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case