SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS vs State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY — 1856/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,323,34. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSU010123262025
Filing Number
11800/2025
Filing Date
24-Dec-2025
Registration No
1856/2025
Registration Date
24-Dec-2025
Court
DJ Div. Supaul
Judge
7-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 25-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
Adv. JANARDAN PRASAD SAH
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
The Sessions Judge, Supaul granted anticipatory bail to all four accused persons (Santosh Kumar Gupta, Kalicharan Gupta, Veena Devi, and Shankar Kumar Gupta) in a dowry harassment case under IPC sections 498(A), 323, 341 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found the allegations lacked specific details beyond the main grievance that the husband purchased property in his mother's name, and noted no custodial interrogation was required since the complainant is a police constable. Each accused was directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of equal amount within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Session Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
12-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
28-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
06-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1856/2025
The Sessions Judge, Supaul granted anticipatory bail to all four accused persons (Santosh Kumar Gupta, Kalicharan Gupta, Veena Devi, and Shankar Kumar Gupta) in a dowry harassment case under IPC sections 498(A), 323, 341 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found the allegations lacked specific details beyond the main grievance that the husband purchased property in his mother's name, and noted no custodial interrogation was required since the complainant is a police constable. Each accused was directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of equal amount within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts