Balraj Yadav vs Uttar Pradesh — 538/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 87,137(2), 64(2)M, 351(3),115(2), 143(4), 98,99,61(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPGD010016122026

Filing Number

1478/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

538/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

38-ADJ/Special Judge (Pocso)

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

364

Police Station

COLONELGANJ

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 87,137(2), 64(2)M, 351(3),115(2), 143(4), 98,99,61(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 5/6,16/17

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Balraj Yadav

    Adv. Jagannath Prasad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Bail OrderView PDF

    The Gonda District Court rejected the bail plea of accused Balraj Yadav in a case involving charges of kidnapping and trafficking of a minor girl under various IPC sections and the POCSO Act. The court found that the victim's detailed statement under Section 180 and 183 CrPC clearly established the accused's involvement in serious offenses against a minor, and given the severity and nature of the crime, the accused was not entitled to bail at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ/Special Judge (Pocso)

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ/Special Judge (Pocso)

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 538/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gonda District Court rejected the bail plea of accused Balraj Yadav in a case involving charges of kidnapping and trafficking of a minor girl under various IPC sections and the POCSO Act. The court found that the victim's detailed statement under Section 180 and 183 CrPC clearly established the accused's involvement in serious offenses against a minor, and given the severity and nature of the crime, the accused was not entitled to bail at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case