KULDEEP BANJARA vs State — 230/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJAJ010007652026

Filing Number

526/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

230/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing

Last updated 02-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

106

Police Station

Clock tower

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KULDEEP BANJARA

    Adv. Kailash Chand Sunariwal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Ajmer Sessions Court rejected bail applications of Kuldeep Banjara and Kamlesh Banjara under Section 483 of the CrPC, finding them involved in a serious fraudulent scheme where they allegedly defrauded multiple people of lakhs of rupees by operating illegal BC (Business Correspondent) schemes. The court emphasized that the applicants' substantial criminal history—15 similar cases pending against them—coupled with the grave nature of the conspiracy-based fraud involving public savings, makes them ineligible for bail at this stage of prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Compliance

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 230/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Ajmer Sessions Court rejected bail applications of Kuldeep Banjara and Kamlesh Banjara under Section 483 of the CrPC, finding them involved in a serious fraudulent scheme where they allegedly defrauded multiple people of lakhs of rupees by operating illegal BC (Business Correspondent) schemes. The court emphasized that the applicants' substantial criminal history—15 similar cases pending against them—coupled with the grave nature of the conspiracy-based fraud involving public savings, makes them ineligible for bail at this stage of prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case