RAHUL vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - G.A., ,VINDHYVASINI DUBEY,SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — BAIL/4382/2026

Disposed: -- on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC010691162026

Filing Number

BAIL/

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

BAIL/4382/2026

Registration Date

03-Feb-2026

Judge

Krishan Pahal

Coram

Krishan Pahal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

U/s 439 Cr.P.C. for bail (major) ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAHUL

    Adv. MUKESH JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - G.A., ,VINDHYVASINI DUBEY,SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

  2. 2.HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE

    Adv. SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VINDHYVASINI DUBEY

  3. 3.CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE

    Adv. SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VINDHYVASINI DUBEY

  4. 4.FIRST INFORMANT

    Adv. SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VINDHYVASINI DUBEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    —

    Krishan Pahal

  3. 28-Mar-2026

    Krishan PahalView PDF

    The bail application filed by Rahul before the Allahabad High Court was adjourned on March 28, 2026, with the case listed for fresh hearing on April 6, 2026. The court noted that counsel for the applicant and the Additional Government Advocate were present, but the first informant's counsel was absent, necessitating the adjournment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 28-Mar-2026

    —

    Vivek Varma

  5. 20-Mar-2026

    —

    Vivek Varma

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-Feb-2026

    Dr. Gautam ChowdharyView PDF

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BAIL/4382/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The bail application filed by Rahul before the Allahabad High Court was adjourned on March 28, 2026, with the case listed for fresh hearing on April 6, 2026. The court noted that counsel for the applicant and the Additional Government Advocate were present, but the first informant's counsel was absent, necessitating the adjournment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case