ARENDRA YADAV vs STATE OF U.P. Advocate - G.A. — BAIL/11313/2026

Case under Andhra State Act Section 506,43-506. Disposed: -- on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 06-Apr-2026

CNR: UPHC011837092026

Filing Number

BAIL/

Filing Date

26-Mar-2026

Registration No

BAIL/11313/2026

Registration Date

01-Apr-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

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 24-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Andhra State Act Section 506,43-506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARENDRA YADAV

    Adv. DIWAN SAIFULLAH KHAN,ABHISHEK ANKUR CHAURASIA,ABHISHEK ANKUR CHAURASIA, ,NOOR MUHAMMAD,YOGESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,ABHISHEK ANKUR CHAURASIA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Rajiv Lochan ShuklaView PDF

    The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to Arendra Yadav in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 147, 188, 307, 504, 506, 120B and Criminal Law Amendment Act Section 7. The court found that Yadav was named in the FIR three years after the incident (unlike co-accused Kuldeep Pandey and Ashish Pandey who were granted bail despite having more serious criminal histories), the case involved no injuries, and he is not a previous convict. Bail was granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, engaging in criminal activity, intimidating witnesses, and ensuring regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    —

    Harvir Singh

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Harvir SinghView PDF

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BAIL/11313/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to Arendra Yadav in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 147, 188, 307, 504, 506, 120B and Criminal Law Amendment Act Section 7. The court found that Yadav was named in the FIR three years after the incident (unlike co-accused Kuldeep Pandey and Ashish Pandey who were granted bail despite having more serious criminal histories), the case involved no injuries, and he is not a previous convict. Bail was granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, engaging in criminal activity, intimidating witnesses, and ensuring regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case