KALLU ALIAS YOGENDRA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A. — NABAIL/1647/2026

Case under Andhra State Act Section 307,43-307. Disposed: -- on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC010970362026

Filing Number

NABAIL/

Filing Date

12-Feb-2026

Registration No

NABAIL/1647/2026

Registration Date

13-Feb-2026

Judge

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Coram

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

ABAIL MAJOR ( 65 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Andhra State Act Section 307,43-307

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KALLU ALIAS YOGENDRA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. PAWAN GIRI

  2. 2.NEELU ALIAS PRAVEEN DIXIT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.VEERENDRA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    —

    Rajiv Lochan Shukla

  3. 18-Feb-2026

    Rajiv Lochan ShuklaView PDF

    The Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to applicants Kallu alias Yogendra and Neelu alias Praveen Dixit in connection with Crime No. 525 of 2005 involving charges under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307. The bail was granted on condition of personal bond with two sureties each, with strict conditions including availability for police interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, prohibition on leaving India without court permission, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 12-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. NABAIL/1647/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to applicants Kallu alias Yogendra and Neelu alias Praveen Dixit in connection with Crime No. 525 of 2005 involving charges under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307. The bail was granted on condition of personal bond with two sureties each, with strict conditions including availability for police interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, prohibition on leaving India without court permission, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case