AJAY KUMAR YADAV vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 402/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2),96,352,351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010027142026
Filing Number
2626/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
402/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
16-District and Additional Sessions Judge - VI-cum-Special Court POCSO
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
1
Police Station
MARAUNA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AJAY KUMAR YADAV
Adv. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 16-District and Additional Sessions Judge - VI-cum-Special Court POCSO
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 19-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY: ABA-402/2026 The District & Additional Sessions Judge rejected Ajay Kumar Yadav's anticipatory bail petition in a kidnapping case involving a 15-year-old minor girl. The court found serious allegations supported by witness statements, the victim's statement, and medical examination reports indicating potential sexual assault, with charges under BNS Sections 137(2), 96, 352, 351, 3(5), POCSO Act Section 4/6, and Child Marriage Prohibition Act Section 09. The court determined sufficient prima facie evidence existed against the accused and investigation was ongoing, making bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: ABA-402/2026 The District & Additional Sessions Judge rejected Ajay Kumar Yadav's anticipatory bail petition in a kidnapping case involving a 15-year-old minor girl. The court found serious allegations supported by witness statements, the victim's statement, and medical examination reports indicating potential sexual assault, with charges under BNS Sections 137(2), 96, 352, 351, 3(5), POCSO Act Section 4/6, and Child Marriage Prohibition Act Section 09. The court determined sufficient prima facie evidence existed against the accused and investigation was ongoing, making bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts