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
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
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
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 25-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts