OMPRAKASH vs STATE GOVT. Advocate - SIYARAM ADHANA — 77/2026

Disposed: Contested--Bail Cancelled on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJBH070002212026

Filing Number

129/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

77/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

ADJ Bayana Taluka

Judge

1-ADJ I

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Cancelled

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

634

Police Station

PS BAYANA

Year

2018

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.OMPRAKASH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE GOVT. Advocate - SIYARAM ADHANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Rajasthan High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application (Section 438 CrPC) of Omprakash, who was accused of criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC. The court found substantial evidence that Omprakash, along with other accused, fraudulently obtained approximately ₹13 lakhs through deception and misappropriation by falsely promising higher bank interest returns, and the accused failed to return the entrusted amount. The court deemed the crime serious in nature and determined that granting anticipatory bail would not be appropriate given the gravity of the offense and circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ I

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    ADJ I

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 77/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Rajasthan High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application (Section 438 CrPC) of Omprakash, who was accused of criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC. The court found substantial evidence that Omprakash, along with other accused, fraudulently obtained approximately ₹13 lakhs through deception and misappropriation by falsely promising higher bank interest returns, and the accused failed to return the entrusted amount. The court deemed the crime serious in nature and determined that granting anticipatory bail would not be appropriate given the gravity of the offense and circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case