maimchand vs State — 54/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 06th April 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAL190001512026
Filing Number
71/2026
Filing Date
10-03-2026
Registration No
54/2026
Registration Date
10-03-2026
Court
ADJ Laxmangarh
Judge
1-ADJ, Laxmangarh
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Refused
FIR Details
FIR Number
71
Police Station
BARODA MEU
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
maimchand
Adv. SH.BRIJRAJ SINGH NARUKA
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ, Laxmangarh
Disposed
Awaiting Report
Awaiting Report
Awaiting Report
Awaiting Report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-04-2026 | Awaiting Report |
| 01-04-2026 | Awaiting Report |
| 30-03-2026 | Awaiting Report |
| 27-03-2026 | Awaiting Report |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Maimchand v. State (CIS No. 54/2026) The court rejected Maimchand's anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 CrPC. Maimchand was accused of theft of crops from a 2.6-bigha agricultural plot (Khata No. 292) in village Bedka, Lakshmanganj. The complaint alleged he harvested the crop without permission on 03-03-2026. The court found prima facie evidence of guilt under Sections 303(2) and 329(2) IPC, determining that bail is warranted only in exceptional cases where false implication is apparent—a threshold not met here given the serious nature of the allegations and available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Maimchand v. State (CIS No. 54/2026) The court rejected Maimchand's anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 CrPC. Maimchand was accused of theft of crops from a 2.6-bigha agricultural plot (Khata No. 292) in village Bedka, Lakshmanganj. The complaint alleged he harvested the crop without permission on 03-03-2026. The court found prima facie evidence of guilt under Sections 303(2) and 329(2) IPC, determining that bail is warranted only in exceptional cases where false implication is apparent—a threshold not met here given the serious nature of the allegations and available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts