CHANDAN YADAV vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 229/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),352,351(2),303(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSU010014082026

Filing Number

1365/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

229/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

313

Police Station

TRIBENIGANJ

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),352,351(2),303(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDAN YADAV

    Adv. OM PRAKASH AMBEDKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    Case Summary: 229/2026 Decision: The Sessions Judge rejected Chandan Yadav's anticipatory bail application. The court found the allegations serious, noting that a 73-year-old victim sustained four injuries (lacerated wound on scalp, bruises, and swelling) corroborated by medical evidence and witness statements, despite the doctor's classification as "simple" injuries. The court emphasized the victim's age, ongoing investigation requiring custodial interrogation, and risk of evidence tampering as reasons denying bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Session Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 229/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 229/2026 Decision: The Sessions Judge rejected Chandan Yadav's anticipatory bail application. The court found the allegations serious, noting that a 73-year-old victim sustained four injuries (lacerated wound on scalp, bruises, and swelling) corroborated by medical evidence and witness statements, despite the doctor's classification as "simple" injuries. The court emphasized the victim's age, ongoing investigation requiring custodial interrogation, and risk of evidence tampering as reasons denying 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