SMT. AJAYWATI vs State of UP — 551/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,80(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 19th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPBN010017352026
Filing Number
1675/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
551/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-DISTRICT JUDGE, BUDAUN
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
FIR Details
FIR Number
85
Police Station
UJHANI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SMT. AJAYWATI
Adv. GAINDAN LAL BAGHEL
Respondent(s)
State of UP
Hearing History
Judge: 1-DISTRICT JUDGE, BUDAUN
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 11-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The District Court of Badaun rejected the second bail application of Smt. Ajayavati, accused in a dowry death case (FIR under IPC Sections 80(2), 85, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act). The court found that while the victim's witnesses had testified, the prosecution's case was still incomplete with further evidence pending, making it premature to grant bail based on incomplete witness testimony alone. The court determined the alleged offense was of serious nature (death caused by strangulation as per post-mortem report), thereby refusing to grant bail as the accused posed an obstruction risk to justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The District Court of Badaun rejected the second bail application of Smt. Ajayavati, accused in a dowry death case (FIR under IPC Sections 80(2), 85, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act). The court found that while the victim's witnesses had testified, the prosecution's case was still incomplete with further evidence pending, making it premature to grant bail based on incomplete witness testimony alone. The court determined the alleged offense was of serious nature (death caused by strangulation as per post-mortem report), thereby refusing to grant bail as the accused posed an obstruction risk to justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts