Ajay Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. — 936/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,452,504,506,424. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.
Bail Application.
CNR: UPAD010026182026
Filing Number
2283/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
936/2026
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
401
Police Station
MAUAIMA
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajay Kumar Pal
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 |
| 23-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 936/2026 - Ajay Kumar Pal v. State of U.P. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj granted bail to accused Ajay Kumar Pal on March 24, 2026, in a case involving charges under IPC sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, and SC/ST Act section 3(2)(5). Pal was accused of breaking into the complainant's house, assaulting him and his wife with caste-based slurs, stealing ₹2,000, and threatening to kill them. The court found the bail application admissible despite the serious allegations, noting the accused's absence for six years and no prior criminal history, and imposed conditions including a personal bond of ₹30,000 with a surety, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, and cooperation in proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 936/2026 - Ajay Kumar Pal v. State of U.P. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj granted bail to accused Ajay Kumar Pal on March 24, 2026, in a case involving charges under IPC sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, and SC/ST Act section 3(2)(5). Pal was accused of breaking into the complainant's house, assaulting him and his wife with caste-based slurs, stealing ₹2,000, and threatening to kill them. The court found the bail application admissible despite the serious allegations, noting the accused's absence for six years and no prior criminal history, and imposed conditions including a personal bond of ₹30,000 with a surety, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, and cooperation in proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts