SHAMSHAD vs STATE OF U.P. Advocate - G.A., ,NEHA TYAGI,AKASH TYAGI — BAIL/24195/2025
Case under Andhra State Act Section 201,43-201. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
CNR: UPHC013148382025
Filing Number
BAIL/
Filing Date
01-Jul-2025
Registration No
BAIL/24195/2025
Registration Date
10-Jul-2025
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATION ( 401500 )
Sub-Category
U/s 439 Cr.P.C. for bail (major) ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Misc.
Last updated 25-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAMSHAD
Adv. SUNDEEP SHUKLA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF U.P. Advocate - G.A., ,NEHA TYAGI,AKASH TYAGI
Case History
-
02-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
02-Jul-2026
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
14-May-2026
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
09-Apr-2026
Ajay BhanotView PDF
Case Summary: BAIL 24195/2025 The Allahabad High Court adjourned Shamshad's fourth bail application to 14.05.2026, without granting bail. The applicant has been incarcerated since July 2020 in a murder case (Section 302, 201, 34 IPC). The court, expressing distress over the six-year delay in concluding trial, directed the trial judge to submit detailed reports on trial status, witness examination, and reasons for delay, and ordered the District Judge to examine compliance with earlier expeditious trial directives. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
19-Mar-2026
Ajay BhanotView PDF
-
02-Feb-2026
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
27-Jan-2026
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
15-Jan-2026
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
18-Dec-2025
Ajay BhanotView PDF
-
18-Dec-2025
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
30-Oct-2025
Ajay BhanotView PDF
-
30-Oct-2025
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
16-Oct-2025
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
01-Sep-2025
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
20-Aug-2025
Ajay BhanotView PDF
-
20-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jul-2025
Ajay BhanotView PDF
-
01-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. BAIL/24195/2025
Case Summary: BAIL 24195/2025 The Allahabad High Court adjourned Shamshad's fourth bail application to 14.05.2026, without granting bail. The applicant has been incarcerated since July 2020 in a murder case (Section 302, 201, 34 IPC). The court, expressing distress over the six-year delay in concluding trial, directed the trial judge to submit detailed reports on trial status, witness examination, and reasons for delay, and ordered the District Judge to examine compliance with earlier expeditious trial directives. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts