LALIT OROAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - GAUTAM RAKESH — B.A./1113/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 70(I),351(2),BNS. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 13th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010034282026
Filing Number
B.A./2325/2026
Filing Date
30-Jan-2026
Registration No
B.A./1113/2026
Registration Date
06-Feb-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
SECTION 483 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 20-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.LALIT OROAN
Adv. KRIPA SHANKAR NANDA,NIRANJAN KR SINHA,NIRANJAN KR SINHA, ,RASHIKA BHARDWAJ,SHREYA TIWARY,NIRANJAN KR SINHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - GAUTAM RAKESH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
The Jharkhand High Court rejected Lalit Oroan's bail application in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 70(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found the allegations against the petitioner to be direct and serious, and considered that trial had already commenced with one witness examined. However, the court directed the State to ensure witnesses are promptly produced for expeditious trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaView PDF
-
26-Mar-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
-
09-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./1113/2026
The Jharkhand High Court rejected Lalit Oroan's bail application in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 70(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found the allegations against the petitioner to be direct and serious, and considered that trial had already commenced with one witness examined. However, the court directed the State to ensure witnesses are promptly produced for expeditious trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts