SMT. AJAYWATI vs State of UP — 551/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,80(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPBN010017352026

Filing Number

1675/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

551/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District Judge, Budaun

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 22-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

85

Police Station

UJHANI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,80(2)
Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SMT. AJAYWATI

    Adv. GAINDAN LAL BAGHEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge, Budaun

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge, Budaun

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 551/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case