MD. ISMAYIL AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 268/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSU010017502026

Filing Number

1702/2026

Filing Date

13-Feb-2026

Registration No

268/2026

Registration Date

13-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 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

267

Police Station

CHHATAPUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MD. ISMAYIL AND OTHERS

    Adv. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The Court of Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Md. Ismail and Md. Israfil in a dacoity case involving the snatching of Rs. 1,30,000. The court found the allegations serious, noting that an apprehended co-accused (Md. Munna) had confessed to the crime and specifically implicated both petitioners, with Rs. 60,000 being recovered from their house, warranting custodial interrogation. 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. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Session Judge

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 268/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Court of Sessions Judge, Supaul rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Md. Ismail and Md. Israfil in a dacoity case involving the snatching of Rs. 1,30,000. The court found the allegations serious, noting that an apprehended co-accused (Md. Munna) had confessed to the crime and specifically implicated both petitioners, with Rs. 60,000 being recovered from their house, warranting custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case