KAJAL NILESH KUMAR DAWE vs STATE OF UP — 981/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),319(2),336(3),338,340(2),61(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023062026

Filing Number

2147/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

981/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

846

Police Station

RAMGARH TAAL

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),319(2),336(3),338,340(2),61(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAJAL NILESH KUMAR DAWE

    Adv. VISHNU KUMAR UPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Court in Gorakhpur rejected the bail application of Kajal Nilesh Kumar Dve, who was arrested on 26.02.2026 under BNS sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2). The court found prima facie evidence that the applicant, along with co-accused, prepared forged documents to defraud the complainant of money under the pretense of opening a food cart, constituting serious offenses. The court held that there was no sufficient legal ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage of investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 981/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Court in Gorakhpur rejected the bail application of Kajal Nilesh Kumar Dve, who was arrested on 26.02.2026 under BNS sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2). The court found prima facie evidence that the applicant, along with co-accused, prepared forged documents to defraud the complainant of money under the pretense of opening a food cart, constituting serious offenses. The court held that there was no sufficient legal ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage of investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case