HARENDRA SAHNI vs State of Bihar — 437/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 121,121(1),117(2),118(2),109,352,351. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRVA010014782026
e-Filing Number
07-02-2026
Filing Number
1329/2026
Filing Date
07-02-2026
Registration No
437/2026
Registration Date
07-02-2026
Court
Vaishali DJ Div.
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
46
Police Station
LALGANJ
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HARENDRA SAHNI
Adv. santosh kumar
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 01-04-2026 | HEARING | |
| 24-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali, decided four interim bail applications arising from FIR No. 46/2026 under IPC sections 121, 121(1), 117(2), 118(2), 109, 352, and 351(2). The court granted interim bail to applicants Harendra Sahni, Suraj Kumar, Rajiv Sahni, and Chandan Sahni (alias Chandan Kumar) on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, as they were found to be sufficiently involved in the alleged mob violence but the evidence against two of the accused (Mantu Kumar Sahni and Nirtesh Kumar) for specific serious injuries warranted their bail rejection pending regular bail proceedings before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali, decided four interim bail applications arising from FIR No. 46/2026 under IPC sections 121, 121(1), 117(2), 118(2), 109, 352, and 351(2). The court granted interim bail to applicants Harendra Sahni, Suraj Kumar, Rajiv Sahni, and Chandan Sahni (alias Chandan Kumar) on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, as they were found to be sufficiently involved in the alleged mob violence but the evidence against two of the accused (Mantu Kumar Sahni and Nirtesh Kumar) for specific serious injuries warranted their bail rejection pending regular bail proceedings before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts