ABDUL WAHID vs STATE OF BIHAR — 171/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115,2,126,2,118,1,109,351,2,352,3,5,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
Cri. Rev App. - CRI. REVISION
CNR: BRPU010089052025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
7955/2025
Filing Date
23-12-2025
Registration No
171/2025
Registration Date
23-12-2025
Court
DJ Div. Purnea
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
14
Police Station
JALALGARH
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ABDUL WAHID
Adv. PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF BIHAR
SHAKUR
SOHIB
KASHIRA
AASMA
SAHJADIN
BEGAM
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-02-2026 | ORDER | |
| 28-01-2026 | HEARING | |
| 02-01-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed Abdul Wahid's criminal revision against the lower court's cognizance order, affirming that the Magistrate properly took cognizance under BNS sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352, and 351(2) against the accused. The court found insufficient evidence for the additional charges under BNS sections 118(2) and 109 (attempt to murder), as the injuries were simple/non-vital, there was no repetition of blows, and the incident arose from a land dispute rather than any intent to kill, lacking the essential mens rea required for these grave offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed Abdul Wahid's criminal revision against the lower court's cognizance order, affirming that the Magistrate properly took cognizance under BNS sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352, and 351(2) against the accused. The court found insufficient evidence for the additional charges under BNS sections 118(2) and 109 (attempt to murder), as the injuries were simple/non-vital, there was no repetition of blows, and the incident arose from a land dispute rather than any intent to kill, lacking the essential mens rea required for these grave offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts