BINOD KUMAR BHARTI AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 1766/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115,109,76,352,351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010112312025
Filing Number
10727/2025
Filing Date
11-12-2025
Registration No
1766/2025
Registration Date
11-12-2025
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
6-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
230
Police Station
KISHANPUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BINOD KUMAR BHARTI AND OTHERS
Adv. RAM NATH MANDAL
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District and Additional Sessions Judge-II
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 18-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court granted bail to the accused Devsundari Devi in Case 1766/2025 (Kishanupur Police Station Case 230/2025) under Section 482(2) BNSS. The charges arose from a property dispute among family members regarding electricity sharing and alleged assault involving multiple IPC sections (126(2), 115, 109, 76, 352, 351(2), 3(5)). The court found insufficient evidence of serious injury (medical examination showed simple wounds), no prior criminal history of the accused, and that the dispute stemmed from unresolved property division among family members, warranting bail with conditions including two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each and a bond with undertakings regarding future conduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted bail to the accused Devsundari Devi in Case 1766/2025 (Kishanupur Police Station Case 230/2025) under Section 482(2) BNSS. The charges arose from a property dispute among family members regarding electricity sharing and alleged assault involving multiple IPC sections (126(2), 115, 109, 76, 352, 351(2), 3(5)). The court found insufficient evidence of serious injury (medical examination showed simple wounds), no prior criminal history of the accused, and that the dispute stemmed from unresolved property division among family members, warranting bail with conditions including two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each and a bond with undertakings regarding future conduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts