VALKRISHNA DEV AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 29/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103(1),61(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 26th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010002052026
Filing Number
199/2026
Filing Date
07-01-2026
Registration No
29/2026
Registration Date
07-01-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
381
Police Station
BIRPUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VALKRISHNA DEV AND OTHERS
Adv. NAGENDRA NARAYAN THAKUR
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 28-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 20-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sessions Judge rejected anticipatory bail applications for five accused: Balkrishna Deo and Sanjan Devi (allegedly conspirators), and Santosh Paswan, Mantu Paswan, and Makeshwar Paswan (allegedly active perpetrators). The court found serious charges of murder by sharp weapons in a case involving a land dispute, supported by witness statements, call records, CCTV footage, and postmortem evidence showing fatal throat injuries. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary, and evidence tampering could not be ruled out. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Sessions Judge rejected anticipatory bail applications for five accused: Balkrishna Deo and Sanjan Devi (allegedly conspirators), and Santosh Paswan, Mantu Paswan, and Makeshwar Paswan (allegedly active perpetrators). The court found serious charges of murder by sharp weapons in a case involving a land dispute, supported by witness statements, call records, CCTV footage, and postmortem evidence showing fatal throat injuries. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary, and evidence tampering could not be ruled out. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts