RAGHUNATH SAH vs State of Bihar — 250/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),126(2),324(4),324(5),308(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 05th May 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSH010017802026
e-Filing Number
26-02-2026
Filing Number
1723/2026
Filing Date
26-Feb-2026
Registration No
250/2026
Registration Date
26-Feb-2026
Court
DJ Div. Saharsa
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 28-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
121
Police Station
SAHARSA SADAR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAGHUNATH SAH
Adv. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
-
2.DINESH SAH
-
3.GANESH SAH ALIAS GANESHI SAH
-
4.VIVEK SAH ALIAS VIVEK KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
Case Summary: The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Raghunath Sah, Ganesh Sah, and Vivek Sah in connection with a case involving allegations of extortion, armed robbery, and criminal intimidation. The court found the allegations serious and credible—based on an FIR arising from an incident where the accused allegedly demanded extortion money, used firearms, assaulted an informant, and damaged his property—and determined that thorough investigation was necessary, thereby denying the petitioners' bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
08-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
26-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 250/2026
Case Summary: The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Raghunath Sah, Ganesh Sah, and Vivek Sah in connection with a case involving allegations of extortion, armed robbery, and criminal intimidation. The court found the allegations serious and credible—based on an FIR arising from an incident where the accused allegedly demanded extortion money, used firearms, assaulted an informant, and damaged his property—and determined that thorough investigation was necessary, thereby denying the petitioners' bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts