SATYENDRA SINGH vs State of Bihar — 264/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420,504,506,138. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.
Cri. Rev App. - CRI. REVISION
CNR: BRSW010141622025
Filing Number
13081/2025
Filing Date
21-Nov-2025
Registration No
264/2025
Registration Date
21-Nov-2025
Court
DJ Div. Siwan
Judge
1-Principal District and Session Judge
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 25-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SATYENDRA SINGH
Adv. SAMBHU SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
orderView PDF
The Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the lower court's order that had rejected the accused's defence witnesses as improper evidence. The court held that filing an application under Section 243 CrPC to compel witness attendance is not mandatory when the defence can secure witness presence itself, and defence evidence cannot be rejected merely because witnesses are not charge-sheeted. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within three months with strict timelines for examining remaining witnesses and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Session Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
03-Feb-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
17-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
17-Dec-2025
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
10-Dec-2025
Hearing
Principal District and Session Judge
-
24-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 264/2025
The Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the lower court's order that had rejected the accused's defence witnesses as improper evidence. The court held that filing an application under Section 243 CrPC to compel witness attendance is not mandatory when the defence can secure witness presence itself, and defence evidence cannot be rejected merely because witnesses are not charge-sheeted. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within three months with strict timelines for examining remaining witnesses and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts