SATYAM YADAV vs STATE OF U.P. Advocate - G.A., ,GYANENDRA SINGH — BAIL/8292/2026

Disposed: -- on 18th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 23-Apr-2026

CNR: UPHC011341832026

Filing Number

BAIL/

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

BAIL/8292/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Judge

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Coram

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

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-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 28-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATYAM YADAV

    Adv. AJAY KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. Advocate - G.A., ,GYANENDRA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-May-2026

    Rajiv Lochan ShuklaView PDF

    The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to applicants Satyam Yadav and Rohit Tiwari in a liquor shop assault case (Crime No. 354/2025, Sections 115(2), 109 B.N.S.), finding sufficient grounds despite grievous injuries to the victims. The court considered prolonged detention (since December 2025), lack of CCTV evidence, delayed FIR filing, satisfactory explanation of criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet was already filed, making further custody unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, regular court appearance, and no witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-May-2026

    —

    Harvir Singh

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Harvir SinghView PDF

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    —

    Harvir Singh

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    —

    Harvir Singh

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Harvir SinghView PDF

  8. 25-Mar-2026

    —

    Santosh Rai

  9. 18-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BAIL/8292/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to applicants Satyam Yadav and Rohit Tiwari in a liquor shop assault case (Crime No. 354/2025, Sections 115(2), 109 B.N.S.), finding sufficient grounds despite grievous injuries to the victims. The court considered prolonged detention (since December 2025), lack of CCTV evidence, delayed FIR filing, satisfactory explanation of criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet was already filed, making further custody unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, regular court appearance, and no witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case