Satya Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. — 743/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,323,506,504,354. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.
Bail Application.
CNR: UPAD010019492026
Filing Number
1686/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
743/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
5-Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 2
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 28-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
242
Police Station
MEJA
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Satya Prakash Mishra
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of U.P.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 743/2026 Court Decision: The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, APPROVED the anticipatory bail application of Satya Prakash Mishra. The accused was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of equal amount, subject to specific conditions including non-interference with witnesses and regular court attendance. Key Reasoning: The court found the allegations stem from a domestic dispute between family members rather than serious criminal conduct. While the FIR (Case No. 242/2022) charges the accused under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 354 related to dowry harassment and assault, the court noted the complainant's own conduct (prior illicit relationship, pregnancy at marriage) suggests a fabricated narrative designed to harass the accused. The incident appears rooted in marital discord rather than substantive criminal wrongdoing warranting custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Additional District and Session Judge RNo. 2
-
25-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 743/2026
Case Summary: 743/2026 Court Decision: The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, APPROVED the anticipatory bail application of Satya Prakash Mishra. The accused was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of equal amount, subject to specific conditions including non-interference with witnesses and regular court attendance. Key Reasoning: The court found the allegations stem from a domestic dispute between family members rather than serious criminal conduct. While the FIR (Case No. 242/2022) charges the accused under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 354 related to dowry harassment and assault, the court noted the complainant's own conduct (prior illicit relationship, pregnancy at marriage) suggests a fabricated narrative designed to harass the accused. The incident appears rooted in marital discord rather than substantive criminal wrongdoing warranting custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts