Dr. Rajneesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar — CWJC/5792/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 17-Apr-2026

CNR: BRHC010320642026

e-Filing Number

26-03-2026

Filing Number

CWJC/7025/2026

Filing Date

26-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWJC/5792/2026

Registration Date

16-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CIVIL WRIT ( 15 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 6700 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dr. Rajneesh Kumar

    Adv. KUMAR SAMEER,Gaurav kumar,Gaurav kumar, ,Gaurav kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Bihar

  2. 2.The Collector,

  3. 3.Sub-Divisional Officer,

  4. 4.Senior Superintendent of Police,

  5. 5.SHO (Station House Officer), PS (Police Station) Barh,

  6. 6.Priyesh Kumar,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajiv RoyView PDF

    Case Summary: CWJC/5792/2026 Dr. Rajneesh Kumar sought a writ to protect his possession of ancestral property where he operates a medical clinic, alleging his nephew (Respondent 6) was creating disturbances affecting his business and reputation. The Patna High Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barh, holding that the magistrate is duty-bound to examine such matters, issue notice, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    For Admission - Fresh Cases

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWJC/5792/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWJC/5792/2026 Dr. Rajneesh Kumar sought a writ to protect his possession of ancestral property where he operates a medical clinic, alleging his nephew (Respondent 6) was creating disturbances affecting his business and reputation. The Patna High Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barh, holding that the magistrate is duty-bound to examine such matters, issue notice, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case