RAM PRASAD vs State of U.P. — 528/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 80,483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPBH010012652026

Filing Number

1185/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

528/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge Bahraich

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

410

Police Station

RISIA

Year

2008

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 80,483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM PRASAD

    Adv. ABHAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Bail Petition is AllowedView PDF

    Case Summary The Sessions Court, Bahraich granted bail to Ram Prasad (44 years) in a 2008 attempted murder case (IPC Sections 307, 401) on March 16, 2026. The court found sufficient grounds for bail considering that the accused had surrendered voluntarily, had no prior criminal convictions, and his prolonged absence was due to labor work in Punjab rather than deliberate court defiance. The bail was granted on condition of a personal bond of ₹30,000, two sureties of equal amount, and strict compliance with court appearances and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge Bahraich

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposal

    District and Sessions Judge Bahraich

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 528/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Sessions Court, Bahraich granted bail to Ram Prasad (44 years) in a 2008 attempted murder case (IPC Sections 307, 401) on March 16, 2026. The court found sufficient grounds for bail considering that the accused had surrendered voluntarily, had no prior criminal convictions, and his prolonged absence was due to labor work in Punjab rather than deliberate court defiance. The bail was granted on condition of a personal bond of ₹30,000, two sureties of equal amount, and strict compliance with court appearances and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case