State Government vs rajveer — 741/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,115(2),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPBJ010028982026

Filing Number

2731/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

741/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-I-Addl. District Judge/Regular

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

120

Police Station

NEHTAUR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,115(2),351(3)
Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.rajveer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Order CopyView PDF

    The court approved the anticipatory bail application of Rajveer, accused in a dowry harassment case under sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) IPC and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the FIR was filed with considerable delay, the accused had no prior criminal history, co-accused had already been granted bail, and there were contradictions in the victim's statements, warranting bail on conditions including furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of equal amount and appearing for trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    I-Addl. District Judge/Regular

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    hearing

    I-Addl. District Judge/Regular

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    hearing

    I-Addl. District Judge/Regular

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 741/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court approved the anticipatory bail application of Rajveer, accused in a dowry harassment case under sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) IPC and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the FIR was filed with considerable delay, the accused had no prior criminal history, co-accused had already been granted bail, and there were contradictions in the victim's statements, warranting bail on conditions including furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of equal amount and appearing for trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case