Smt. Bachi Devi @ Bacchi Devi vs The State of Bihar — MJC/278/2022

Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: BRHC010134592022

e-Filing Number

19-02-2022

Filing Number

MJC/3354/2022

Filing Date

19-Feb-2022

Registration No

MJC/278/2022

Registration Date

21-Feb-2022

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MJC ( 10 )

Sub-Category

CONTEMPT- SJ ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 215
Contempt of Courts Act Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt. Bachi Devi @ Bacchi Devi

    Adv. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju,Sunil Kumar,Sunil Kumar, ,Sunil Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Bihar

  2. 2.Sri Himanshu Kumar Rai,

  3. 3.Sri Manoj Kumar,

  4. 4.Sri Sanjay Kumar Ambast,

  5. 5.Sri Deepak Ranjan,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajiv RoyView PDF

    Case Summary: MJC/278/2022 Smt. Bachi Devi filed a contempt petition against Bihar state officials for alleged willful disobedience of a 2011 court order regarding plot no. 1756. The State counsel clarified that while the original writ petition concerned plot 1756, the petitioner's representation was for plot 1748, and the State has no claim over plot 1756. Justice Rajiv Roy disposed of the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue any remaining grievances through appropriate channels. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2023

    Miscellaneous

    The Joint Registrar Judicial Lawazima

  4. 19-Feb-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. MJC/278/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MJC/278/2022 Smt. Bachi Devi filed a contempt petition against Bihar state officials for alleged willful disobedience of a 2011 court order regarding plot no. 1756. The State counsel clarified that while the original writ petition concerned plot 1756, the petitioner's representation was for plot 1748, and the State has no claim over plot 1756. Justice Rajiv Roy disposed of the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue any remaining grievances through appropriate channels. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case