Bhanu Pratap Singh vs Uttar Pradesh — 485/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 117(2), 118(1), 190,115(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPGD010014892026

Filing Number

1367/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

485/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 23-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 117(2), 118(1), 190,115(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bhanu Pratap Singh

    Adv. Akhand Pratap Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Bail OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Judge at Gonda allowed the bail application of Bhanu Pratap Singh, accused in a case involving alleged mob violence over fish farming rights, finding that there was no specific role attributed to him in the FIR and no grievous injuries were substantiated despite initial claims. The court relied on the absence of CT scan reports, the fact that co-accused persons had already been granted bail with similar roles, and that investigation was ongoing, ordering his release on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount each, subject to standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 485/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge at Gonda allowed the bail application of Bhanu Pratap Singh, accused in a case involving alleged mob violence over fish farming rights, finding that there was no specific role attributed to him in the FIR and no grievous injuries were substantiated despite initial claims. The court relied on the absence of CT scan reports, the fact that co-accused persons had already been granted bail with similar roles, and that investigation was ongoing, ordering his release on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount each, subject to standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case