Jai Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Advocate - Shyam sunder Mishra — 203/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2). Disposed: Uncontested--Not Pressed on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPCH010004842026

Filing Number

457/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

203/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Not Pressed

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

325

Police Station

MAU

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act Section 4/21
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jai Prakash Singh

    Adv. Amit Kumar Mishra

  2. 2.Vipin Yadav

    Adv. Amit Kumar Mishra

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P. Advocate - Shyam sunder Mishra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court rejected the bail application (No. 203/2026) filed by two accused persons charged under IPC sections 303(2), 317(2), 379, 411, and provisions of the Mines Act and Public Property Protection Act. The court dismissed the application because the accused's counsel failed to substantiate the bail plea with sufficient arguments and grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 203/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the bail application (No. 203/2026) filed by two accused persons charged under IPC sections 303(2), 317(2), 379, 411, and provisions of the Mines Act and Public Property Protection Act. The court dismissed the application because the accused's counsel failed to substantiate the bail plea with sufficient arguments and grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case