Awadesh Mishra vs U.P State Government — 335/2026

Case under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (prevention) Act, 1986 Section 3(1),. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 16th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPAU010008852026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

848/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

335/2026

Registration Date

27-02-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC - I Auraiya

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

UTTAR PRADESH GANGSTERS AND ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1986 Section 3(1),

Petitioner(s)

Awadesh Mishra

Adv. HIRDAY NARAYAN PANDEY

Respondent(s)

U.P State Government

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC - I Auraiya

16-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Hearing

10-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Bail Order

The court rejected the bail application of Avdhesh Mishra, accused under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangster Act in Case No. 97/2024 (Auraiya). The court found that the accused is an active member of an organized criminal gang involved in extortion, murder, and other serious crimes, with two criminal cases registered against him including charges under IPC Section 302. Despite the accused's arguments about mistaken identity and lack of criminal history, the court determined there was sufficient basis to believe the accused committed the offenses alleged and posed a flight risk if released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the bail application of Avdhesh Mishra, accused under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangster Act in Case No. 97/2024 (Auraiya). The court found that the accused is an active member of an organized criminal gang involved in extortion, murder, and other serious crimes, with two criminal cases registered against him including charges under IPC Section 302. Despite the accused's arguments about mistaken identity and lack of criminal history, the court determined there was sufficient basis to believe the accused committed the offenses alleged and posed a flight risk if released. 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