NITIN UPADHYAY ALIAS NITENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAY vs U.P State — 196/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPAN010007482026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

699/2026

Filing Date

13-02-2026

Registration No

196/2026

Registration Date

13-02-2026

Court

DIstrict and Sessions Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

171

Police Station

BHITI

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438

Petitioner(s)

NITIN UPADHYAY ALIAS NITENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAY

Adv. PREM PRAKASH TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

U.P State

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge

12-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Hearing

25-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Order

Court Decision Summary The Session Court, Ambedkar Nagar granted conditional anticipatory bail to Nitin Upadhyay under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving embezzlement charges under IPC Sections 408 and 120B related to a government school construction project. The court found the case to be civil in nature and noted that the investigation lacked proper examination of contractual agreements (MOU) between the company and contractor, and no evidence of funds reaching the applicant's account was established. Bail was granted on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of equal amount, subject to conditions including court attendance, cooperation during trial, and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Session Court, Ambedkar Nagar granted conditional anticipatory bail to Nitin Upadhyay under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving embezzlement charges under IPC Sections 408 and 120B related to a government school construction project. The court found the case to be civil in nature and noted that the investigation lacked proper examination of contractual agreements (MOU) between the company and contractor, and no evidence of funds reaching the applicant's account was established. Bail was granted on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of equal amount, subject to conditions including court attendance, cooperation during trial, and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DIstrict and Sessions Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case