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.

Regular Bail

CNR: BRPU010021442026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

1995/2026

Filing Date

02-03-2026

Registration No

248/2026

Registration Date

02-03-2026

Court

DJ Div. Purnea

Judge

4-2nd DASJ

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

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)

RAM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY

Adv. MD SHAMSHER ALAM

RANJIT CHOHDARY

Respondent(s)

STATE

Hearing History

Judge: 4-2nd DASJ

09-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

HEARING

06-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Copy of Order

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Purnea All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case