ANKUSH vs STATE OF UP Advocate - DGC CRIMINAL — 56/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Revision

CNR: UPBH010008422026

Filing Number

785/2026

Filing Date

13-Feb-2026

Registration No

56/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-1st Additional District and Sessions Judge Bahraich

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 24-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANKUSH

    Adv. GHANSHYAM VERMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UP Advocate - DGC CRIMINAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The First Additional Sessions Court of Bahraich accepted the criminal revision petition and set aside the lower court's order dated 06.02.2026 rejecting the registered owner's (Ankush) plea to release a seized auto-rickshaw (UP 40 CT 3244). The court found that the lower court committed legal error by applying the doctrine of res judicata (which applies only in civil cases) to reject the second release petition, and held that the vehicle should be released to its registered owner with appropriate bonds and conditions, following Supreme Court precedent in *Sundar Bhai Ambalal v. State of Gujarat*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    1st Additional District and Sessions Judge Bahraich

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    5th Additional District and Sessions Judge Bahraich

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 13-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 56/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The First Additional Sessions Court of Bahraich accepted the criminal revision petition and set aside the lower court's order dated 06.02.2026 rejecting the registered owner's (Ankush) plea to release a seized auto-rickshaw (UP 40 CT 3244). The court found that the lower court committed legal error by applying the doctrine of res judicata (which applies only in civil cases) to reject the second release petition, and held that the vehicle should be released to its registered owner with appropriate bonds and conditions, following Supreme Court precedent in *Sundar Bhai Ambalal v. State of Gujarat*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case