Ramashankar Sahani vs State of U.P. — 90/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,148,149,186,323,332,341,342,353,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 12th March 2026.
Anticipatory Bail Application - Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 CrPC
CNR: UPCD010005302026
Filing Number
509/2026
Filing Date
09-02-2026
Registration No
90/2026
Registration Date
09-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-Additional District & Session Judge RNo. 1
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
94
Police Station
Chakiya
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramashankar Sahani
Adv. SHAFIQ KHAN
Respondent(s)
State of U.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District & Session Judge RNo. 1
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 07-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 26-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 24-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Ramashankar Sahani and 11 others (Case No. 509/2026). The court found that the applicants, along with 50-60 unknown persons, allegedly assaulted police personnel, blocked a public highway for approximately four hours, and obstructed a government operation by forcibly detaining a tractor driver and making extortion demands. The court determined that the applicants failed to disclose previous rejected bail applications and submitted false affidavits, concluding they were not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC due to the serious nature of the offenses and their direct involvement in the criminal acts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Ramashankar Sahani and 11 others (Case No. 509/2026). The court found that the applicants, along with 50-60 unknown persons, allegedly assaulted police personnel, blocked a public highway for approximately four hours, and obstructed a government operation by forcibly detaining a tractor driver and making extortion demands. The court determined that the applicants failed to disclose previous rejected bail applications and submitted false affidavits, concluding they were not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC due to the serious nature of the offenses and their direct involvement in the criminal acts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts