MD SARWAR ALES SARWAR vs STATE — 448/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRPU010025312026

e-Filing Number

13-03-2026

Filing Number

2365/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

448/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Purnea

Judge

4-2nd Dasj

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

68

Police Station

BAISI

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MD SARWAR ALES SARWAR

    Adv. MD AAMIR SOHEL

  2. 2.rukhsana khatoon

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 448/2026 Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to both petitioners, Md. Sarwar and Rukhsana Khatoon, charged with assault, robbery, and criminal intimidation in connection with an incident on 17.02.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioners had clean antecedents, the case was compromised outside court with the informant present, and they undertook to cooperate in trial and not tamper with evidence. The petitioners were directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of equal amount each within fifteen days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Dasj

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Dasj

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 448/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 448/2026 Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to both petitioners, Md. Sarwar and Rukhsana Khatoon, charged with assault, robbery, and criminal intimidation in connection with an incident on 17.02.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioners had clean antecedents, the case was compromised outside court with the informant present, and they undertook to cooperate in trial and not tamper with evidence. The petitioners were directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of equal amount each within fifteen days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case