MUKESH YADAV vs State Gov. — 479/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 351(3),352,115(2),191(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010010212026

Filing Number

949/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

479/2026

Registration Date

06-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

3-

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

146

Police Station

Gola

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 351(3),352,115(2),191(2)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)D,3(1)DH,3(2)VA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUKESH YADAV

    Adv. HARSHITA YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Gov.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court granted bail to accused Mukesh Yadav in a case involving charges under BNS sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2) and SC/ST Act sections 3(1) and 3(2). The court found that despite serious allegations of assault and casteist abuse, there was insufficient evidence of flight risk or crime commission, and the accused was already in judicial custody with no criminal history. Bail was granted on personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Hearing

  10. 06-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  11. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 479/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted bail to accused Mukesh Yadav in a case involving charges under BNS sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2) and SC/ST Act sections 3(1) and 3(2). The court found that despite serious allegations of assault and casteist abuse, there was insufficient evidence of flight risk or crime commission, and the accused was already in judicial custody with no criminal history. Bail was granted on personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case