Arjun Kumar vs Uttar Pradesh — 440/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2),318(4),338,336(3),340(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPGD010013302026

Filing Number

1221/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

440/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Addl. District Judge-III

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

27

Police Station

TARABGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2),318(4),338,336(3),340(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arjun Kumar

    Adv. Shiv Prasad Tiwari

  2. 2.Geeta

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Bail OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court of Gonda, Uttar Pradesh rejected the anticipatory bail application of Arjun Kumar and Geeta. The court found credible evidence that the accused fabricated forged documents to fraudulently register agricultural plots (originally owned by the petitioner's deceased father) in their names on 23.07.2025, subsequently changing the sale deed on 25.09.2025. The court determined the charges under BNS Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) constitute grave offenses and the investigation was still ongoing, making them ineligible for pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge-III

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge-III

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 440/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court of Gonda, Uttar Pradesh rejected the anticipatory bail application of Arjun Kumar and Geeta. The court found credible evidence that the accused fabricated forged documents to fraudulently register agricultural plots (originally owned by the petitioner's deceased father) in their names on 23.07.2025, subsequently changing the sale deed on 25.09.2025. The court determined the charges under BNS Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) constitute grave offenses and the investigation was still ongoing, making them ineligible for pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case