SANTOSH KUMAR vs State of UP — 429/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,379. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPEW010013482026

Filing Number

1281/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

429/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

3-IInd A.D.J./Spl. J (Sc/ST, Prev. of Atrocitiy Act)

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

00

Police Station

BARHPURA

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,379
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)rs,3(2)(5a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANTOSH KUMAR

    Adv. RAMA SHANKAR KUSHWAHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    copy of JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Special Court (SC/ST Act) in Etawah granted bail to petitioner Santosh Kumar on March 9, 2026, in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 323, 504, and 379, along with SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provisions. The court found that despite allegations of land encroachment and altercation on August 27, 2022, the petitioner had no prior criminal history, had not misused interim bail, and the case facts did not warrant continued detention, making him eligible for release on a bond of ₹20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    IInd A.D.J./Spl. J (Sc/ST, Prev. of Atrocitiy Act)

  4. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 429/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Special Court (SC/ST Act) in Etawah granted bail to petitioner Santosh Kumar on March 9, 2026, in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 323, 504, and 379, along with SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provisions. The court found that despite allegations of land encroachment and altercation on August 27, 2022, the petitioner had no prior criminal history, had not misused interim bail, and the case facts did not warrant continued detention, making him eligible for release on a bond of ₹20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case