SURENDRA YADAV vs State of Bihar — 307/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),74,352,351(2),109(1),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010020762026
Filing Number
2015/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
307/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
0640
Police Station
SUPAUL
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SURENDRA YADAV
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 01-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 28-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 19-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Surendra Yadav v. State of Bihar (ABA-307/2026) The Sessions Judge, Supaul granted anticipatory bail to Surendra Yadav and two co-accused (Anil Yadav and Satan Yadav) in a violent altercation case. The court found that while allegations included forcible construction on disputed land with weapons and assault, Surendra Yadav faced only incitement charges without specific injury allegations, and the injured parties sustained simple injuries. The court emphasized the underlying land dispute between the informant and the accused, the existence of a cross-case filed by accused persons, and weak injury evidence, warranting bail bonds of Rs. 20,000 each with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Surendra Yadav v. State of Bihar (ABA-307/2026) The Sessions Judge, Supaul granted anticipatory bail to Surendra Yadav and two co-accused (Anil Yadav and Satan Yadav) in a violent altercation case. The court found that while allegations included forcible construction on disputed land with weapons and assault, Surendra Yadav faced only incitement charges without specific injury allegations, and the injured parties sustained simple injuries. The court emphasized the underlying land dispute between the informant and the accused, the existence of a cross-case filed by accused persons, and weak injury evidence, warranting bail bonds of Rs. 20,000 each with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts