Vishal yadav alias sundaram yadav vs state of bihar — 187/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),352,351(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 02nd May 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BRWC100028712026
Filing Number
2734/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
187/2026
Registration Date
17-Mar-2026
Court
Bagha Sub Div. Court
Judge
27-District And Additional Sessions Judge IInd
Decision Date
02-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
173
Police Station
Dhanaha
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vishal yadav alias sundaram yadav
Adv. Shree Parshant Bharti
Respondent(s)
-
1.state of bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-May-2026
BailView PDF
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Vishal Yadav, who was accused of stalking, threatening, and attempting to forcibly compel an informant's daughter to speak with him, along with arms act violations. The court found material evidence on record supporting the allegations and noted the petitioner's two prior criminal cases, determining that anticipatory bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-May-2026
Restored
District And Additional Sessions Judge IInd
-
02-May-2026
Hearing
District And Additional Sessions Judge IInd
-
02-May-2026
Disposed
District And Additional Sessions Judge IInd
-
21-Apr-2026
Hearing
III rd Additional District and Sessions Court
-
15-Apr-2026
Hearing
III rd Additional District and Sessions Court
-
02-Apr-2026
Hearing
III rd Additional District and Sessions Court
-
25-Mar-2026
Hearing
III rd Additional District and Sessions Court
-
18-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 187/2026
The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Vishal Yadav, who was accused of stalking, threatening, and attempting to forcibly compel an informant's daughter to speak with him, along with arms act violations. The court found material evidence on record supporting the allegations and noted the petitioner's two prior criminal cases, determining that anticipatory bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts