Vinay KUmar vs U.P State Government — 338/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),109(1),74,333,352. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPAU010008552026

Filing Number

819/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

338/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

3-Special Judge (Sc/ST Act) Auraiya

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

29

Police Station

Achhalda

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),109(1),74,333,352
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(2)(V),3(2)(Va),3(1)(w)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vinay KUmar

    Adv. Dharmendra singh Sengar

  2. 2.Krishna alias Sanu Tiwari alias Krishna

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.U.P State Government

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed OtherwiseView PDF

    The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application (No. 338/2026) filed by Vinay Kumar and Krishna in case crime no. 29/2026 involving charges under IPC sections 115(2), 109(1), 74, 333, 352 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(w). The dismissal was granted because the applicant's counsel declined to press the bail petition, and consequently the court rejected it for want of prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Special Judge (Sc/ST Act) Auraiya

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge (Sc/ST Act) Auraiya

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 338/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application (No. 338/2026) filed by Vinay Kumar and Krishna in case crime no. 29/2026 involving charges under IPC sections 115(2), 109(1), 74, 333, 352 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(w). The dismissal was granted because the applicant's counsel declined to press the bail petition, and consequently the court rejected it for want of prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case