SHAMBHU MUKHIYA NAD OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 203/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(4),126(2),115(2),76,303(2),352,3(5). Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 22nd April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010012232026
Filing Number
1183/2026
Filing Date
03-02-2026
Registration No
203/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
1-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
366
Police Station
SUPAUL
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHAMBHU MUKHIYA NAD OTHERS
Adv. BASUDEO MEHTA
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 |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 25-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 203/2026 The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Shambhu Mukhiya for charges including criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and theft under BNS sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 76, 303(2), 352, and 3(5). Finding sufficient evidence in the FIR and complainant's statement describing the alleged nighttime house intrusion, physical assault, and jewelry theft, the court deemed the charges grave and the accused a flight risk. However, the court granted anticipatory bail to the other two accused (Belo Mukhiya and Gulab Devi) on rupees 10,000 bail bonds each, as no specific charges existed against them beyond allegations of abusive language. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 203/2026 The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Shambhu Mukhiya for charges including criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and theft under BNS sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 76, 303(2), 352, and 3(5). Finding sufficient evidence in the FIR and complainant's statement describing the alleged nighttime house intrusion, physical assault, and jewelry theft, the court deemed the charges grave and the accused a flight risk. However, the court granted anticipatory bail to the other two accused (Belo Mukhiya and Gulab Devi) on rupees 10,000 bail bonds each, as no specific charges existed against them beyond allegations of abusive language. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts