STATE vs ANUJ SINGH — 23/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,406,34. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 08th April 2026.
Bail Matters
CNR: DLST010001452026
Filing Number
56/2026
Filing Date
07-Jan-2026
Registration No
23/2026
Registration Date
07-Jan-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, South , Saket
Judge
779-Additional Sessions Judge
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 08-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
481
Police Station
Tigri
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE
Respondent(s)
-
1.ANUJ SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: Bail Application No. 23/2026 (STATE v. ANUJ SINGH) The court granted anticipatory bail to Anuj Singh in a case registered under IPC Sections 498A/406/34 (offences punishable up to 7 years). The court found no reasonable apprehension of arrest, noting that the accused had already cooperated with the investigation, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and counsel undertook that the accused would continue cooperating as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
Additional Sessions Judge
-
14-Mar-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
14-Mar-2026
For Bail
Special Judge
-
02-Mar-2026
For Bail
Special Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
18-Feb-2026
For Bail
Additional Sessions Judge -SC-Rc
-
09-Feb-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
09-Feb-2026
For Bail
Additional Sessions Judge -SC-Rc
-
08-Jan-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
08-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 23/2026
Case Summary: Bail Application No. 23/2026 (STATE v. ANUJ SINGH) The court granted anticipatory bail to Anuj Singh in a case registered under IPC Sections 498A/406/34 (offences punishable up to 7 years). The court found no reasonable apprehension of arrest, noting that the accused had already cooperated with the investigation, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and counsel undertook that the accused would continue cooperating as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts