OMPRAKASH vs STATE GOVT. Advocate - SIYARAM ADHANA — 77/2026
Disposed: Contested--Bail Cancelled on 11th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJBH070002212026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
129/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
77/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
ADJ Bayana Taluka
Judge
1-ADJ I
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Cancelled
FIR Details
FIR Number
634
Police Station
PS BAYANA
Year
2018
Petitioner(s)
OMPRAKASH
Respondent(s)
STATE GOVT. Advocate - SIYARAM ADHANA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ I
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts