Jeevach Yadav vs State of Bihar — 94/2026
Case under --- Section 137(2),87,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd April 2026.
Abp - Aniticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSM200001812026
e-Filing Number
24-01-2026
Filing Number
182/2026
Filing Date
25-01-2026
Registration No
94/2026
Registration Date
27-01-2026
Court
DJ Div. Rosera
Judge
1-District and Addl. Sessions Judge I
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
32
Police Station
SHIVAJI NAGAR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jeevach Yadav
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Ram Pravesh Kumar Alias Ram Pravesh Yadav
Ram Adesh Kumar Alias Ram Adesh Yadav
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Addl. Sessions Judge I
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 18-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-04-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court granted anticipatory bail to the three petitioners (Jeevach Yadav, Ram Pravesh Kumar, and Ram Adesh Kumar) in a kidnapping case. The key reasoning was that the alleged victim, a minor girl, voluntarily reappeared before police and categorically stated in her statement that she left home of her own volition, went to Delhi for employment, and explicitly denied being kidnapped by any of the accused. The court found no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, absence of criminal antecedents, and concluded that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of similar amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted anticipatory bail to the three petitioners (Jeevach Yadav, Ram Pravesh Kumar, and Ram Adesh Kumar) in a kidnapping case. The key reasoning was that the alleged victim, a minor girl, voluntarily reappeared before police and categorically stated in her statement that she left home of her own volition, went to Delhi for employment, and explicitly denied being kidnapped by any of the accused. The court found no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, absence of criminal antecedents, and concluded that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of similar amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts