Kundan yadav vs state of bihar — 203/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),316(2),318(4),338,336(3),352,351(2),3(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRWC100029172026

Filing Number

2780/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

203/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Court

Bagha Sub Div. Court

Judge

2-District Additional Sessions Judge Ist

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

127

Police Station

Ramnagar

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),316(2),318(4),338,336(3),352,351(2),3(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kundan yadav

    Adv. SHRI UPADHYAY SUNIL KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.state of bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: Kundan Yadav v. State of Bihar (203/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Kundan Yadav in an extortion and criminal intimidation case arising from a land dispute. The court found that while petitioner was not named in the original FIR complaint, his name emerged only from witness statements, and witness accounts indicated he was "only making pressure" compared to other co-accused. Considering these circumstances and that co-accused had already been granted bail, the court released petitioner on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, requiring surrender within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Additional Sessions Judge Ist

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Ist Additional District and Session Judge

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 203/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Kundan Yadav v. State of Bihar (203/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Kundan Yadav in an extortion and criminal intimidation case arising from a land dispute. The court found that while petitioner was not named in the original FIR complaint, his name emerged only from witness statements, and witness accounts indicated he was "only making pressure" compared to other co-accused. Considering these circumstances and that co-accused had already been granted bail, the court released petitioner on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, requiring surrender within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case