State Of Bihar vs MAHESH YADAV — 107/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 447,341,323,354,504,506,34. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 11th July 2026.

CRI. CASE

CNR: BRSM210002962022

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

11th July 2026

e-Filing Number

10-02-2022

Filing Number

296/2022

Filing Date

01-04-2022

Registration No

107/2022

Registration Date

01-04-2022

Court

CJM Div. Rosera

Judge

2-ACJM

FIR Details

FIR Number

0007

Police Station

ROSRA

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 447,341,323,354,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

State Of Bihar

Respondent(s)

MAHESH YADAV

UMESH YADAV

MANI YADA

PAWAN YADAV

HARIHAR MAHTO

LAKSHMAN MAHTO

RAM CHANDRA YADAV

PANKAJ YADAV

SUNIL YADAV

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ACJM

06-05-2026

EVIDENCE

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE

12-03-2026

Appearence

11-03-2026

Appearence

17-12-2025

Appearence

Interim Orders

29-09-2023
INTERLOCATORY ORDER

Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Mahesh Yadav & Others (107/2022) Bail was granted to seven accused persons on September 22, 2023. The court ordered their release on a bail bond of Rs. 7,000 each with two equal sureties, after finding the charges (under IPC sections 447, 341, 323, 354, 504, 506) largely bailable except section 354. The accused were directed to comply with bail conditions and file an undertaking to abstain from criminal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Mahesh Yadav & Others (107/2022) Bail was granted to seven accused persons on September 22, 2023. The court ordered their release on a bail bond of Rs. 7,000 each with two equal sureties, after finding the charges (under IPC sections 447, 341, 323, 354, 504, 506) largely bailable except section 354. The accused were directed to comply with bail conditions and file an undertaking to abstain from criminal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CJM Div. Rosera All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case