Bhoopendra vs State — 332/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),351(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPET010008252026

Filing Number

730/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

332/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

452

Police Station

JALESAR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),351(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bhoopendra

    Adv. Mukesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Court at Eta granted bail to the accused Bhupendra in a rape case (FIR No. 452/2025 under BNS Sections 64(1), 351(2)) noting significant inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including contradictions in the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNS, delayed FIR filing without explanation, and victim's educational certificate indicating age 18+ years. The court ordered his release on personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of equal amount, finding him entitled to bail despite the serious nature of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Sessions Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District And Sessions Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District And Sessions Judge

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District And Sessions Judge

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 332/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Court at Eta granted bail to the accused Bhupendra in a rape case (FIR No. 452/2025 under BNS Sections 64(1), 351(2)) noting significant inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including contradictions in the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNS, delayed FIR filing without explanation, and victim's educational certificate indicating age 18+ years. The court ordered his release on personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of equal amount, finding him entitled to bail despite the serious nature of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case