PAWAN GOYAL vs State of U.P. Advocate - Inder Pal Singh — 241/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 352,115(2),351(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPBG010006952026

Case disposed

Filing Number

673/2026

Filing Date

30-01-2026

Registration No

241/2026

Registration Date

30-01-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

8-ADJ(Special Judge Sc/St Act)

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

271

Police Station

SINGHWALI AHIR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 352,115(2),351(2)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(2),5A

Petitioner(s)

PAWAN GOYAL

Adv. SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

Respondent(s)

State of U.P. Advocate - Inder Pal Singh

Hearing History

Judge: 8-ADJ(Special Judge Sc/St Act)

12-03-2026

Disposed

05-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Hearing

23-02-2026

Hearing

17-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Order

Case Summary: 241/2026 — Pawan Goyal v. State of U.P. The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to accused Pawan Goyal in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 352, 115(2), 351(2) and SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(va), relating to alleged assault, abuse, and threats against a scheduled caste member. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court found sufficient grounds for release, noting the offense is bailable (punishable up to seven years), no misuse of interim bail was demonstrated, and bail conditions were adequate to ensure court attendance and prevent witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 241/2026 — Pawan Goyal v. State of U.P. The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to accused Pawan Goyal in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 352, 115(2), 351(2) and SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(va), relating to alleged assault, abuse, and threats against a scheduled caste member. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court found sufficient grounds for release, noting the offense is bailable (punishable up to seven years), no misuse of interim bail was demonstrated, and bail conditions were adequate to ensure court attendance and prevent witness intimidation. 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