UPENDRA SINGH ALIAS UTKARSH vs State of Bihar — 763/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),319(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRBJ010035922026

Filing Number

2860/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

763/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

Bhojpur DJ Division

Judge

1-Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

45

Police Station

Cyber Thana

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),319(2)
I.t. Act 2000 Section 66(D)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UPENDRA SINGH ALIAS UTKARSH

    Adv. ANIT KUMAR BANTI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The District and Sessions Court of Bhojpur dismissed the bail petition of Upendra Singh @ Utkarsh, who was arrested in a cyber fraud case where a medical officer was defrauded of ₹19 lakh through impersonation of an ATS officer and fictitious court proceedings. The court found that while the petitioner was initially not named in the FIR, his involvement emerged from the confessional statement of co-accused Jishan Khan, and considering the serious nature of digital fraud, the complexity of the case still in initial stages, and the difficulty in tracing cyber criminals, bail was deemed inappropriate at this juncture. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal Dist. and Ses. Judge

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 763/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District and Sessions Court of Bhojpur dismissed the bail petition of Upendra Singh @ Utkarsh, who was arrested in a cyber fraud case where a medical officer was defrauded of ₹19 lakh through impersonation of an ATS officer and fictitious court proceedings. The court found that while the petitioner was initially not named in the FIR, his involvement emerged from the confessional statement of co-accused Jishan Khan, and considering the serious nature of digital fraud, the complexity of the case still in initial stages, and the difficulty in tracing cyber criminals, bail was deemed inappropriate at this juncture. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case