SHAITAN SINGH vs State — 269/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJAJ010009432026

Filing Number

677/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

269/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ

Judge

3-Addl District and Sessions Judge II

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

102

Police Station

Kotwali

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAITAN SINGH

    Adv. Manish Kumar Khandelwal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 269/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, rejected Shaitan Singh's bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita on March 13, 2026. The court found that Singh faced serious charges under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B IPC for allegedly defrauding an investor (Kiran Rathod) of ₹18,75,674 through fraudulent investment schemes, coupled with his prior criminal history (cases from 2010 and 2022). Given the grave nature of the offenses and circumstances, the court deemed bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl District and Sessions Judge II

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 269/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 269/2026 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, rejected Shaitan Singh's bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita on March 13, 2026. The court found that Singh faced serious charges under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B IPC for allegedly defrauding an investor (Kiran Rathod) of ₹18,75,674 through fraudulent investment schemes, coupled with his prior criminal history (cases from 2010 and 2022). Given the grave nature of the offenses and circumstances, the court deemed bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case