RAMNAGINA PRASAD vs State of Bihar — 30/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),74,352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 06th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSO010001992026
e-Filing Number
22-01-2026
Filing Number
185/2026
Filing Date
22-01-2026
Registration No
30/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
Sheohar DJ Div.
Judge
3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
23
Police Station
SC/ST P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMNAGINA PRASAD
Adv. Yogendra sah
RAMSWARTH PRASAD
Adv. Yogendra sah
CHANDRASHEKHAR PRASAD URF MUNNA PRASAD
Adv. Yogendra sah
NANDU PASWAN
Adv. Yogendra sah
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 28-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 18-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by four petitioners (Ramnagina Prasad, Ramswarth Prasad, Chandrashekhar Prasad, and Nandu Paswan) in a case involving charges under the SC/ST Act for alleged harassment, assault with weapons, and caste-based abuse. The court held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, and since the petitioners have no criminal antecedent but face serious charges, enlargement on anticipatory bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by four petitioners (Ramnagina Prasad, Ramswarth Prasad, Chandrashekhar Prasad, and Nandu Paswan) in a case involving charges under the SC/ST Act for alleged harassment, assault with weapons, and caste-based abuse. The court held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, and since the petitioners have no criminal antecedent but face serious charges, enlargement on anticipatory bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts