STATE vs MANISH KUMAR — 446/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420/34. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 27th March 2026.
Bail Matters
CNR: DLWT010030772026
Filing Number
997/2026
Filing Date
12-Mar-2026
Registration No
446/2026
Registration Date
12-Mar-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, West, THC
Judge
156-Special Judge
Decision Date
27-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
86
Police Station
Moti Nagar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE
Adv. xyz
Respondent(s)
-
1.MANISH KUMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: STATE v. MANISH KUMAR (446/2026) Decision: The court rejected Manish Kumar's anticipatory bail application. The judge found the allegations against Kumar serious—involving alleged cheating and fraud in a property transaction worth Rs. 20 lakhs where he allegedly helped facilitate the sale, wrote receipt entries, and later retained the original bayana agreement and property keys while the property was sold to a third party. Kumar's non-cooperation with police (failing to produce employment and document details despite notice) and the gravity of charges warranted custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
27-Mar-2026
Disposed
Special Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
20-Mar-2026
For Bail
Special Judge
-
19-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
19-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
19-Mar-2026
For Bail
Special Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
For Bail
Additional Sessions Judge - 03
-
13-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 446/2026
Case Summary: STATE v. MANISH KUMAR (446/2026) Decision: The court rejected Manish Kumar's anticipatory bail application. The judge found the allegations against Kumar serious—involving alleged cheating and fraud in a property transaction worth Rs. 20 lakhs where he allegedly helped facilitate the sale, wrote receipt entries, and later retained the original bayana agreement and property keys while the property was sold to a third party. Kumar's non-cooperation with police (failing to produce employment and document details despite notice) and the gravity of charges warranted custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts