RAHUL CHANDRAVANSHI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - V.S.SAHAY — Cr.M.P./1763/2026

Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010154132026

Filing Number

Cr.M.P./9919/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

Cr.M.P./1763/2026

Registration Date

17-Jun-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

Modification Matter ( 20 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAHUL CHANDRAVANSHI

    Adv. SANJANA KUMARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - V.S.SAHAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1763/2026 The Jharkhand High Court modified paragraph 6(i) of a bail order dated 20.04.2026, allowing any close relative of petitioner Rahul Chandravanshi to serve as bailor instead of the originally specified pairvikar who lacked sufficient assets. The court granted the modification petition after hearing the petitioner's counsel, as the original surety was unable to furnish security. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.M.P./1763/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1763/2026 The Jharkhand High Court modified paragraph 6(i) of a bail order dated 20.04.2026, allowing any close relative of petitioner Rahul Chandravanshi to serve as bailor instead of the originally specified pairvikar who lacked sufficient assets. The court granted the modification petition after hearing the petitioner's counsel, as the original surety was unable to furnish security. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case