Geeta Devi vs State of Bihar — 278/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(5),318(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 23rd March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRVA010008382026
e-Filing Number
22-01-2026
Filing Number
735/2026
Filing Date
24-01-2026
Registration No
278/2026
Registration Date
24-01-2026
Court
Vaishali DJ Div.
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
328
Police Station
JANDAHA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Geeta Devi
Adv. RAVI BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY
SUDHIR KUMAR
Adv. RAVI BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sessions Judge, Vaishali rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Geeta Kumari (PACS Manager) and Sudhir Kumar (PACS Chairman) in connection with alleged misappropriation of 844.50 quintals of paddy entrusted for CMR conversion, resulting in a loss of approximately ₹19,42,350 to the government. The court found specific and direct allegations of defalcation substantiated by official verification and FCI inspection reports, and held that the serious economic offence involving substantial financial loss and the petitioners' responsible positions warranted denial of bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Sessions Judge, Vaishali rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Geeta Kumari (PACS Manager) and Sudhir Kumar (PACS Chairman) in connection with alleged misappropriation of 844.50 quintals of paddy entrusted for CMR conversion, resulting in a loss of approximately ₹19,42,350 to the government. The court found specific and direct allegations of defalcation substantiated by official verification and FCI inspection reports, and held that the serious economic offence involving substantial financial loss and the petitioners' responsible positions warranted denial of bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts