MEENA DEVI AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 36/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64, 309(4)(I),115(2),352,329(2),351(2)(3),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 09th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010002622026
Filing Number
251/2026
Filing Date
09-01-2026
Registration No
36/2026
Registration Date
09-01-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
1-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
70
Police Station
Supaul Mahila Thana
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MEENA DEVI AND OTHERS
Adv. SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAV
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 23-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 36/2026 The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by seven accused persons (Meena Devi, Shiv Shankar Mukhiya, Radhe Mukhiya, Mandika Devi, Sundar Mukhiya, Punam Devi, and Dinesh Mukhiya) in a Women's Police Station case involving charges under BNS sections 64, 309(4), 115(2), 352, 329(2), 351(2)(3), and 3(5). The court found sufficient evidence in the case diary, medical report, complainant's statement, and witness testimonies supporting serious charges of forced sexual relations, threats, and violence, determining that the accused's release on anticipatory bail would not be appropriate or justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 36/2026 The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by seven accused persons (Meena Devi, Shiv Shankar Mukhiya, Radhe Mukhiya, Mandika Devi, Sundar Mukhiya, Punam Devi, and Dinesh Mukhiya) in a Women's Police Station case involving charges under BNS sections 64, 309(4), 115(2), 352, 329(2), 351(2)(3), and 3(5). The court found sufficient evidence in the case diary, medical report, complainant's statement, and witness testimonies supporting serious charges of forced sexual relations, threats, and violence, determining that the accused's release on anticipatory bail would not be appropriate or justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts