MANOJ VISHWAKARMA vs STATE OF UP — 987/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,504,506,468,471,120B. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023072026

Filing Number

2148/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

987/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

104

Police Station

RAMGARH TAAL

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,504,506,468,471,120B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOJ VISHWAKARMA

    Adv. ANURAG VISHWAKARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court at Gorakhpur granted conditional anticipatory bail to Manoj Vishwakarm (accused in FIR No. 104/2023 for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 468, 471, 120-B) on March 13, 2026. The applicant was accused of fraudulently obtaining ₹8.6 lakh from the complainant through forged documents after promising company dealership. The court found insufficient prima facie evidence linking the applicant directly to the conspiracy and ordered his release on bail with a ₹25,000 security bond and seven strict conditions, including court appearance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 987/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court at Gorakhpur granted conditional anticipatory bail to Manoj Vishwakarm (accused in FIR No. 104/2023 for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 468, 471, 120-B) on March 13, 2026. The applicant was accused of fraudulently obtaining ₹8.6 lakh from the complainant through forged documents after promising company dealership. The court found insufficient prima facie evidence linking the applicant directly to the conspiracy and ordered his release on bail with a ₹25,000 security bond and seven strict conditions, including court appearance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case