SERAJ ALAM URF MD SERAJ ALAM vs State of Bihar — 314/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),351(2),352(,117(2),110,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 21st April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRST010011872026
Filing Number
1064/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
314/2026
Registration Date
07-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Sitamarhi
Judge
2-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
Decision Date
21-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 07-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
55
Police Station
SITAMARHI
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SERAJ ALAM URF MD SERAJ ALAM
Adv. SUBODH KUMAR
-
2.MD IMRAN URF MD IBRAN KURAISHI
-
3.MD NURAIN
-
4.MD NOOR ALAM URF NOOR ALAM
-
5.MAHMUDA KHATOON
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-Apr-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
Summary: The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi granted anticipatory bail to five applicants (Seraj Alam, Mohd. Imran, Mohammad Noorain, Mohd. Noor Alam, and Mahmuda Khatoon) accused of assault and extortion in a land dispute case. The court found the allegations lack specificity, the injury report inadequate, and noted the existence of a counter-case, warranting bail with Rs. 15,000 bond and two sureties each under BNS Section 482(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
-
04-Apr-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 314/2026
Summary: The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi granted anticipatory bail to five applicants (Seraj Alam, Mohd. Imran, Mohammad Noorain, Mohd. Noor Alam, and Mahmuda Khatoon) accused of assault and extortion in a land dispute case. The court found the allegations lack specificity, the injury report inadequate, and noted the existence of a counter-case, warranting bail with Rs. 15,000 bond and two sureties each under BNS Section 482(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts