ABHISHEK vs STATE OF U.P. Advocate - G.A. — BAIL/8137/2026

Disposed: -- on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC011308982026

Filing Number

BAIL/

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

BAIL/8137/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Judge

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Coram

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

U/s 439 Cr.P.C. for bail (minor) ( 7 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 30-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABHISHEK

    Adv. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Arun Kumar Singh DeshwalView PDF

    BAIL/8137/2026 — CASE SUMMARY The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Abhishek in a motorcycle and mobile phone snatching case (Crime No. 223/2025, under BNS Sections 310(2) and 317(2)). The court found that although Abhishek was not originally named in the FIR and was not identified by the victim, he was implicated based on recovery of a motorcycle from joint possession. The court allowed the bail application primarily on grounds of parity with co-accused Bharat, who had been similarly granted bail, considering the nature of the offense, jail overcrowding, and case pendency. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including personal bond, two sureties, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    —

    Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BAIL/8137/2026

casestatus.in Summary

BAIL/8137/2026 — CASE SUMMARY The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Abhishek in a motorcycle and mobile phone snatching case (Crime No. 223/2025, under BNS Sections 310(2) and 317(2)). The court found that although Abhishek was not originally named in the FIR and was not identified by the victim, he was implicated based on recovery of a motorcycle from joint possession. The court allowed the bail application primarily on grounds of parity with co-accused Bharat, who had been similarly granted bail, considering the nature of the offense, jail overcrowding, and case pendency. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including personal bond, two sureties, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case