Vijendra urf motiya vs STATE Advocate - P.P — 154/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJJH010004782026

Filing Number

368/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

154/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Jhunjhunu District HQ

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Granted

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

19

Police Station

Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunun

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vijendra urf motiya

    Adv. Sh. Ramsingh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE Advocate - P.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 154/2026 — Vijendra urf Motiya v. State Decision: The Session Court granted bail to Vijendra (age 21) in a motorcycle theft case (FIR 19/2026) under Sections 303(2) and 112(2) IPC. The petitioner was arrested on March 1, 2026, and had been in judicial custody. Reasoning: The court found no recovery was made from the accused, observed that trial would consume considerable time, and considered that bail conditions were reasonable under criminal procedure law. The court imposed bail conditions: two sureties of ₹25,000 each and personal bond of ₹50,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 154/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 154/2026 — Vijendra urf Motiya v. State Decision: The Session Court granted bail to Vijendra (age 21) in a motorcycle theft case (FIR 19/2026) under Sections 303(2) and 112(2) IPC. The petitioner was arrested on March 1, 2026, and had been in judicial custody. Reasoning: The court found no recovery was made from the accused, observed that trial would consume considerable time, and considered that bail conditions were reasonable under criminal procedure law. The court imposed bail conditions: two sureties of ₹25,000 each and personal bond of ₹50,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case