STATE vs PRABHA DEVI — 24/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,406,34. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 08th April 2026.
Bail Matters
CNR: DLST010001462026
Filing Number
57/2026
Filing Date
07-Jan-2026
Registration No
24/2026
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.PRABHA DEVI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: State v. Prabha Devi (Bail Application 24/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to Prabha Devi and three co-accused under Section 482 BNSS in a case registered under IPC Sections 498A/406/34 (offences punishable up to 7 years). The investigating officer conceded that the accused had already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court found no reasonable apprehension of arrest, noting the accused's cooperation and counsel's undertaking to ensure continued cooperation during investigation. 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. 24/2026
Case Summary: State v. Prabha Devi (Bail Application 24/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to Prabha Devi and three co-accused under Section 482 BNSS in a case registered under IPC Sections 498A/406/34 (offences punishable up to 7 years). The investigating officer conceded that the accused had already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court found no reasonable apprehension of arrest, noting the accused's cooperation and counsel's undertaking to ensure continued cooperation during investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts