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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

11800/2025

Filing Date

24-12-2025

Registration No

1856/2025

Registration Date

24-12-2025

Court

DJ Div. Supaul

Judge

7-Principal District and Session Judge

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498A,323,34
Dowry Prohibition (D.P) Act Section 3,4

Petitioner(s)

SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS

Adv. JANARDAN PRASAD SAH

Respondent(s)

State of Bihar Advocate - JAI NARAYAN PANDEY

Hearing History

Judge: 7-Principal District and Session Judge

24-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

HEARING

23-02-2026

HEARING

12-02-2026

HEARING

28-01-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Copy of order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DJ Div. Supaul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case