RITESH UPADHYAY ALIS MUSKAN UPADHYAY vs State of Bihar — 215/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303,2,62,,317,5,111,112,3/5. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRGO010037052026

Filing Number

3522/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

215/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

19-ADJ-VI-Cum-POCSO Special Court

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

354

Police Station

BAIKUNTHPUR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303,2,62,,317,5,111,112,3/5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RITESH UPADHYAY ALIS MUSKAN UPADHYAY

    Adv. PRAVEEN CHANDRA SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, rejected the bail application of Ritesh Upadhyay (alias Muskan Upadhyay) in a tractor theft case. The court found that the petitioner was involved in dealing with stolen property, as a stolen tractor was recovered from his house based on confessions of apprehended thieves, and he has prior criminal antecedents. The judge distinguished his case from a co-accused who was granted bail, determining that the circumstances did not warrant bail in this instance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ-VI-Cum-POCSO Special Court

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Admission

    ADJ-VI-Cum-POCSO Special Court

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 215/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, rejected the bail application of Ritesh Upadhyay (alias Muskan Upadhyay) in a tractor theft case. The court found that the petitioner was involved in dealing with stolen property, as a stolen tractor was recovered from his house based on confessions of apprehended thieves, and he has prior criminal antecedents. The judge distinguished his case from a co-accused who was granted bail, determining that the circumstances did not warrant bail in this instance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case