MD SADAM vs State of Bihar — 29/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498(A),323,504/34. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSO010001912026

e-Filing Number

21-01-2026

Filing Number

178/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

29/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Court

Sheohar DJ Div.

Judge

3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

SHEOHAR

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498(A),323,504/34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MD SADAM

    Adv. Dheeraj kumar mishra

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court rejected Md. Saddam's anticipatory bail petition, finding that the allegations against him—involving dowry demands, physical abuse, and driving his wife from their matrimonial home—were serious and credible. The judge determined that as the husband, Saddam had a duty to care for his wife with dignity, which he failed to perform, making pre-arrest bail inappropriate given the nature and gravity of the charges under IPC sections 323, 498(A), and 504/34. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  5. 21-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  8. 24-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 29/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected Md. Saddam's anticipatory bail petition, finding that the allegations against him—involving dowry demands, physical abuse, and driving his wife from their matrimonial home—were serious and credible. The judge determined that as the husband, Saddam had a duty to care for his wife with dignity, which he failed to perform, making pre-arrest bail inappropriate given the nature and gravity of the charges under IPC sections 323, 498(A), and 504/34. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case