BALISTAR SINGH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF BIHAR — 556/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),126(2),118(1),76,352,3(5),351(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 23rd March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRSW010030432026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
2821/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
556/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
DJ Div. Siwan
Judge
3-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
5
Police Station
Siwan SC/ST P.S
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BALISTAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Adv. RAM NARESH PANDIT
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF BIHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected the interim bail application filed by five accused persons (Balistar Singh, Tunnu, Ragho Singh, Shivoji Singh, and Prem Sagar Singh) in a case involving charges under IPC sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 76, 352, 351(2), 3(5) and SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w). The court found credible evidence from prosecution witnesses supporting the allegations that the accused attempted to illegally seize land belonging to the complainant (a scheduled caste woman) and assaulted her with weapons, causing serious injuries, dismissing the defense claim that the case was fabricated. The court held that the interim bail application was not maintainable under the SC/ST Act due to procedural bars and rejected it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the interim bail application filed by five accused persons (Balistar Singh, Tunnu, Ragho Singh, Shivoji Singh, and Prem Sagar Singh) in a case involving charges under IPC sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 76, 352, 351(2), 3(5) and SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w). The court found credible evidence from prosecution witnesses supporting the allegations that the accused attempted to illegally seize land belonging to the complainant (a scheduled caste woman) and assaulted her with weapons, causing serious injuries, dismissing the defense claim that the case was fabricated. The court held that the interim bail application was not maintainable under the SC/ST Act due to procedural bars and rejected it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts