KULDEEP BANJARA vs State — 231/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 12th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAJ010007662026
Filing Number
527/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
231/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
FIR Details
FIR Number
105
Police Station
Clock tower
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KULDEEP BANJARA
Adv. Kailash Chand Sunariwal
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Compliance
Compliance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Compliance |
| 07-03-2026 | Compliance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Session Court of Ajmer rejected bail applications filed by Kuldeep Banjara and Kamlesh Banjara under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the accused were involved in a serious criminal conspiracy operating a fraudulent scheme (BC scheme) through which they defrauded multiple people of lakhs of rupees, and noted the accused had 15 similar criminal cases pending against them, demonstrating a serious criminal background. The court held that given the gravity of the offenses under IPC Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(2), and the pattern of criminal conduct, bail was not justified at this stage of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Session Court of Ajmer rejected bail applications filed by Kuldeep Banjara and Kamlesh Banjara under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the accused were involved in a serious criminal conspiracy operating a fraudulent scheme (BC scheme) through which they defrauded multiple people of lakhs of rupees, and noted the accused had 15 similar criminal cases pending against them, demonstrating a serious criminal background. The court held that given the gravity of the offenses under IPC Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(2), and the pattern of criminal conduct, bail was not justified at this stage of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts