KULDEEP BANJARA vs State — 235/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 12th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAJ010007712026
Filing Number
532/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
235/2026
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
104
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 (Criminal Misc. Cases 235/2026 and 237/2026) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The accused were charged under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita for operating a fraudulent savings scheme (BC), defrauding numerous people of approximately ₹2,70,000 and misappropriating funds. The court found their criminal record showed 15 similar pending cases involving identical charges, demonstrating a serious pattern of fraud, and ruled that bail at this stage was unjustified given the grave nature of the offenses and criminal background. 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 (Criminal Misc. Cases 235/2026 and 237/2026) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The accused were charged under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita for operating a fraudulent savings scheme (BC), defrauding numerous people of approximately ₹2,70,000 and misappropriating funds. The court found their criminal record showed 15 similar pending cases involving identical charges, demonstrating a serious pattern of fraud, and ruled that bail at this stage was unjustified given the grave nature of the offenses and criminal background. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts