STATE vs MANISHA PASWAN — 408/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th March 2026.
Bail Matters
CNR: DLSW010035142026
Filing Number
1216/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
408/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
District and Session Judge, South-West DWK
Judge
435-Additional Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
111
Police Station
Dabri
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. STATE
Respondent(s)
MANISHA PASWAN
Hearing History
Judge: 435-Additional Sessions Judge
Disposed
Misc. cases/purpose
Misc. cases/purpose
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
| 09-03-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 408/2026 Summary: The Delhi court dismissed Manisha Paswan's anticipatory bail application in an online fraud case involving ₹1,50,000 siphoned from a complainant's bank account. The court found serious allegations against her—cheating and criminal conspiracy under BNS sections 318(4)/3(5)—noting she received ₹2,000 in criminal proceeds and her account was used as the beneficiary account. The court rejected bail, determining the investigation was at a nascent stage, custodial interrogation was necessary to recover digital evidence and identify conspirators, and granting bail would impede investigation and send a wrong signal against rising cyber-fraud offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 408/2026 Summary: The Delhi court dismissed Manisha Paswan's anticipatory bail application in an online fraud case involving ₹1,50,000 siphoned from a complainant's bank account. The court found serious allegations against her—cheating and criminal conspiracy under BNS sections 318(4)/3(5)—noting she received ₹2,000 in criminal proceeds and her account was used as the beneficiary account. The court rejected bail, determining the investigation was at a nascent stage, custodial interrogation was necessary to recover digital evidence and identify conspirators, and granting bail would impede investigation and send a wrong signal against rising cyber-fraud offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts