RAM SAGAR ROY vs State of Bihar — 37/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 21st May 2026.

Case disposed

Cri. Revision

CNR: BRVA010014932025

Filing Number

1327/2025

Filing Date

13-Feb-2025

Registration No

37/2025

Registration Date

13-Feb-2025

Court

Vaishali DJ Div.

Judge

4-District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

Decision Date

21-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM SAGAR ROY

    Adv. SHASHI BHUSHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

  2. 2.PREMSHILA DEVI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed Ram Sagar Roy's criminal revision petition challenging a January 29, 2025 order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that had initiated proceedings under BNS sections 76, 79, 64(1), 62, 238, and 3(5), and IT Act sections 66(E), 67(A), and 66(D). The court found the lower court's order legally sound, noting that the investigating officer (Roy himself, a retired police officer aged ~75 with no criminal history) was properly named as an accused based on witness testimony placing him at the crime scene, and that proper cognizance procedures were followed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-May-2026

    Disposed

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  4. 04-May-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  5. 22-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  6. 13-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge 1st

  8. 19-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  11. 07-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  12. 20-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  13. 22-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  14. 01-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  15. 11-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  16. 16-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  17. 23-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  18. 04-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  19. 28-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  20. 08-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  21. 19-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  22. 04-Jul-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  23. 20-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  24. 04-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  25. 15-May-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  26. 30-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  27. 19-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  28. 27-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  29. 07-Mar-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  30. 27-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  31. 17-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 13-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 37/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed Ram Sagar Roy's criminal revision petition challenging a January 29, 2025 order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that had initiated proceedings under BNS sections 76, 79, 64(1), 62, 238, and 3(5), and IT Act sections 66(E), 67(A), and 66(D). The court found the lower court's order legally sound, noting that the investigating officer (Roy himself, a retired police officer aged ~75 with no criminal history) was properly named as an accused based on witness testimony placing him at the crime scene, and that proper cognizance procedures were followed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case