VINOD RAY vs State of Bihar — 561/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),118(1),109(1),,303(2),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--Bail Rejected on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

A.b.p - Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSR010019432026

e-Filing Number

04-02-2026

Filing Number

1823/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

561/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Saran at Chapra

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Rejected

Last updated 04-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

47

Police Station

RIVIL GANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),118(1),109(1),,303(2),352,3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD RAY

    Adv. Ajay Kumar Singh

  2. 2.SAROJ RAY alias SAROJA RAY

    Adv. Ajay Kumar Singh

  3. 3.SATENDRA RAY

    Adv. Ajay Kumar Singh

  4. 4.RAMESH RAY ALIAS RAMESH KUMAR RAY

    Adv. Ajay Kumar Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    Copy of Bail OrderView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Vinod Ray and three others accused of assault, weapon use, and theft in a politically-motivated attack case. The court found that the seriousness of offences (including injuries to vital body parts), ongoing investigation, criminal antecedents of the accused, and risk of evidence tampering and victim influence justified denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Case Diary

    Principal District Judge

  5. 10-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  6. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 561/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Vinod Ray and three others accused of assault, weapon use, and theft in a politically-motivated attack case. The court found that the seriousness of offences (including injuries to vital body parts), ongoing investigation, criminal antecedents of the accused, and risk of evidence tampering and victim influence justified denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case