BACHCHU YADAV vs THE STATE OF BIHAR Advocate - Sri Chandramauleshwar Prasad — 90/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),352,351,3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL
CNR: BRSP010008882026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
858/2026
Filing Date
10-02-2026
Registration No
90/2026
Registration Date
10-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Sheikhpura
Judge
2-District and Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Judge SC/ST Cases)
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
8
Police Station
SC/ST
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BACHCHU YADAV
Adv. SHYAM KISHORE KUMAR
KUNDAN YADAV
LACHHO YADAV ALIAS LAKSHMAN YADAV
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF BIHAR Advocate - Sri Chandramauleshwar Prasad
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District and Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Judge SC/ST Cases)
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 23-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 21-02-2026 | HEARING | |
| 18-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of three accused (Bachhu Yadav, Kundan Yadav, and Lachho Yadav) charged under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The court found sufficient material in the case diary showing the accused abused the complainant using his caste name, uprooted trees on his land, and made threatening statements. Relying on Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the gravity of the offense, the court held that no anticipatory bail could be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of three accused (Bachhu Yadav, Kundan Yadav, and Lachho Yadav) charged under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The court found sufficient material in the case diary showing the accused abused the complainant using his caste name, uprooted trees on his land, and made threatening statements. Relying on Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the gravity of the offense, the court held that no anticipatory bail could be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts