Bhupendra Singh Shakya urf Tinku vs State Government Advocate - PP Dholpur — 247/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Misc. Cases - CR. MISC

CNR: RJDH010004152026

Filing Number

360/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

247/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Dholpur District HQ

Judge

2-Addl District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

103

Police Station

Mahila Police Station,Dhaulpur

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bhupendra Singh Shakya urf Tinku

    Adv. Gopal SinghGurjar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor) Dholpur

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional District and Sessions Judge of Dholpur, Rajasthan granted bail to the accused Bhupendra Singh Shakya under Section 483 BNS, rejecting the prosecution's opposition. The court found that charges under IPC Sections 363, 420, 406, and 120B and the POCSO Act were alleged but considered the accused innocent given the lack of recovery and absence of prior criminal record, ultimately granting him the benefit of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl District and Sessions Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

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

    Addl District and Sessions Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 247/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional District and Sessions Judge of Dholpur, Rajasthan granted bail to the accused Bhupendra Singh Shakya under Section 483 BNS, rejecting the prosecution's opposition. The court found that charges under IPC Sections 363, 420, 406, and 120B and the POCSO Act were alleged but considered the accused innocent given the lack of recovery and absence of prior criminal record, ultimately granting him the benefit of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case