STATE vs RAMAN DEEP SINGH — 418/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 20th March 2026.
Bail Matters
CNR: DLWT010029442026
Filing Number
958/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
418/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, West, THC
Judge
156-Special Judge
Decision Date
20-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
77
Police Station
Moti Nagar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE
Adv. xyz
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAMAN DEEP SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Mar-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: STATE v. RAMAN DEEP SINGH (418/2026) The court dismissed Raman Deep Singh's anticipatory bail application in a case involving charges under IPC sections 376/354A/354 (rape and sexual harassment). The accused was alleged to have engaged in a three-year relationship with the complainant under false pretenses, promising marriage while showing fake divorce papers, then making non-consensual intimate videos and threatening to misuse them. The court found the allegations serious and determined that granting bail posed risks of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and flight from justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Mar-2026
Disposed
Special Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
For Bail
Additional Sessions Judge - 03
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
For Bail
Special Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
For Bail
Special Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 418/2026
Case Summary: STATE v. RAMAN DEEP SINGH (418/2026) The court dismissed Raman Deep Singh's anticipatory bail application in a case involving charges under IPC sections 376/354A/354 (rape and sexual harassment). The accused was alleged to have engaged in a three-year relationship with the complainant under false pretenses, promising marriage while showing fake divorce papers, then making non-consensual intimate videos and threatening to misuse them. The court found the allegations serious and determined that granting bail posed risks of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and flight from justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts