MURARI YADAV ALIAS GOPAL SHARAN MURARI vs State of Bihar — 160/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),118(2),303(2),109,333,352,351(3),3(5),103(1). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRSH010020292026

e-Filing Number

10-03-2026

Filing Number

1966/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

160/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Saharsa

Judge

6-District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

23

Police Station

Pastapar

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),118(2),303(2),109,333,352,351(3),3(5),103(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MURARI YADAV ALIAS GOPAL SHARAN MURARI

    Adv. Abhishek Krishna

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge rejected bail applications from five accused persons (Murari Yadav, Fulo Yadav, Ganesh Yadav, Anil Yadav, and Shashi Yadav) charged with armed home invasion, assault, theft, and criminal intimidation. The court found sufficient evidence against them, including the victim's recorded statement naming all accused and testimony from two witnesses in the session trial confirming their involvement in the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 160/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected bail applications from five accused persons (Murari Yadav, Fulo Yadav, Ganesh Yadav, Anil Yadav, and Shashi Yadav) charged with armed home invasion, assault, theft, and criminal intimidation. The court found sufficient evidence against them, including the victim's recorded statement naming all accused and testimony from two witnesses in the session trial confirming their involvement in the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case