Mukim Atmaj Majid vs State of Rajasthan Advocate - P P — 152/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Misc. Cases - CR. MISC

CNR: RJBR010004022026

Filing Number

318/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

152/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Baran HQ

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Granted

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

12

Police Station

Bhanwargrah Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mukim Atmaj Majid

    Adv. Pouras Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Rajasthan Advocate - P P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The District and Sessions Court, Barmer (Rajasthan) granted bail to two accused—Mukkim and Dharma Urf Dharamveer Banjara—in a cattle theft case (FIR No. 12/2026, IPC Section 303(2)). The court accepted their bail pleas under Section 483 CrPC, imposing conditions including Rs. 25,000 personal bonds each, Rs. 50,000 surety bonds each, and requirements to attend all hearings and not intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    District And Sessions Judge

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 152/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The District and Sessions Court, Barmer (Rajasthan) granted bail to two accused—Mukkim and Dharma Urf Dharamveer Banjara—in a cattle theft case (FIR No. 12/2026, IPC Section 303(2)). The court accepted their bail pleas under Section 483 CrPC, imposing conditions including Rs. 25,000 personal bonds each, Rs. 50,000 surety bonds each, and requirements to attend all hearings and not intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case