Maneesh Kushwaha vs U.P State Government — 277/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),317(2),338,336(3),340(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPAU010007392026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

709/2026

Filing Date

17-02-2026

Registration No

277/2026

Registration Date

17-02-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

11-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

25

Police Station

Auraiya

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),317(2),338,336(3),340(2)
Information Technology Act Section 66D

Petitioner(s)

Maneesh Kushwaha

Adv. Dinesh Kumar Rajput

Respondent(s)

U.P State Government

Hearing History

Judge: 11-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Hearing

24-02-2026

Hearing

17-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Bail Order

Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Auraiya, dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition (No. 277/2026) filed by Manish Kushwaha, accused of cyber fraud involving cheating a woman of ₹33,63,925 through fake online impersonation promising gold and jewelry. The court rejected the bail plea despite finding the accused was not named in the initial FIR, holding that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy requiring strong reasons, particularly in grave offences carrying severe punishment under BNS sections 318(4), 317(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and IT Act section 66D. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Auraiya, dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition (No. 277/2026) filed by Manish Kushwaha, accused of cyber fraud involving cheating a woman of ₹33,63,925 through fake online impersonation promising gold and jewelry. The court rejected the bail plea despite finding the accused was not named in the initial FIR, holding that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy requiring strong reasons, particularly in grave offences carrying severe punishment under BNS sections 318(4), 317(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and IT Act section 66D. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case