Mahajan Gupta alias Shivam Gupta vs State of U.P. — 937/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506,354. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.
Bail Application.
CNR: UPAD010026132026
Filing Number
2278/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
937/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-Special Judge SC and ST Act
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
151
Police Station
COLONALGANJ
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mahajan Gupta alias Shivam Gupta
Respondent(s)
State of U.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Special Judge SC and ST Act
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 937/2026 Summary: The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj granted bail to Mahajan Gupta alias Shivam Gupta, accused of charges under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(d)-(h). The court found that while the allegations involved assault, obscene conduct, and caste-based slurs against the complainant and her daughter on February 3, 2023, the serious nature of offenses alone does not warrant bail rejection. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that prior criminal history—not mere charge gravity—determines bail eligibility, and granted bail on ₹30,000 personal bond with standard conditions requiring cooperation in trial proceedings and abstention from illegal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 937/2026 Summary: The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj granted bail to Mahajan Gupta alias Shivam Gupta, accused of charges under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(d)-(h). The court found that while the allegations involved assault, obscene conduct, and caste-based slurs against the complainant and her daughter on February 3, 2023, the serious nature of offenses alone does not warrant bail rejection. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that prior criminal history—not mere charge gravity—determines bail eligibility, and granted bail on ₹30,000 personal bond with standard conditions requiring cooperation in trial proceedings and abstention from illegal activity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts