CHANDBABU vs STATE OF UP Advocate - DGC CRIMINAL — 13/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 19th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPBH010000482026
Filing Number
47/2026
Filing Date
05-Jan-2026
Registration No
13/2026
Registration Date
05-Jan-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
Decision Date
19-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1
Police Station
KOTWALI NAGAR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CHANDBABU
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UP Advocate - DGC CRIMINAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
The Sessions Court, Bahraich dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Chandbaboo against the State of U.P. for offenses under sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, and 110 BNS, primarily due to the applicant's repeated absence from court hearings without submitting any adjournment request. The court found that despite multiple calls, no representative appeared on behalf of the applicant to substantiate the bail petition, leading to its rejection on grounds of non-prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
26-Feb-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
18-Feb-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
09-Feb-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
29-Jan-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
16-Jan-2026
Disposal
District and Sessions Judge Bahraich
-
15-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 13/2026
The Sessions Court, Bahraich dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Chandbaboo against the State of U.P. for offenses under sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, and 110 BNS, primarily due to the applicant's repeated absence from court hearings without submitting any adjournment request. The court found that despite multiple calls, no representative appeared on behalf of the applicant to substantiate the bail petition, leading to its rejection on grounds of non-prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts