UDAY SHANKAR YADAV vs State of Bihar — 428/2026

Case under Indian Electricity Act Section 135. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRBJ010025392026

Filing Number

1905/2026

Filing Date

07-Feb-2026

Registration No

428/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Court

Bhojpur DJ Division

Judge

5-Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

20

Police Station

UDWANT NAGAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Electricity Act Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UDAY SHANKAR YADAV

    Adv. VASUDEV NARAYAN SACCHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Uday Shankar Yadav in an electricity theft case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The court found the allegations of illegal electricity theft causing Rs. 1,67,937 loss to be serious, noted the petitioner's unwillingness to compensate, and held that investigation was pending, thereby denying bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  8. 21-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  10. 11-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Distt. and Addl. S.J -II

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 07-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 428/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Uday Shankar Yadav in an electricity theft case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The court found the allegations of illegal electricity theft causing Rs. 1,67,937 loss to be serious, noted the petitioner's unwillingness to compensate, and held that investigation was pending, thereby denying bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case