RAVI YADAV vs STATE OF UP — 988/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109,351(3),352,191(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 20th March 2026.
Bail Application.
CNR: UPGK010023092026
Filing Number
2150/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
988/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
20-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 07-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
180
Police Station
Gulharia
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAVI YADAV
Adv. PRABHU NATH BHATIYA
-
2.PRADDUMAN YADAV
-
3.DHANANJAY YADAV
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UP
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The Sessions Court, Gorakhpur granted conditional anticipatory bail to three accused persons (Ravi Yadav, Pradumn Yadav, and Dhannajay Yadav) on March 20, 2026, in a case involving allegations of attempt to murder and criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 109, 351(3), 352, and 191. The court found insufficient evidence linking the accused to the alleged incident and noted inconsistencies between the FIR and medical examination report, which showed only 5 internal injuries with no external marks. The accused were released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with strict conditions including regular appearance before the investigating officer and court, prohibition from leaving the country without permission, and non-commission of further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 988/2026
Summary The Sessions Court, Gorakhpur granted conditional anticipatory bail to three accused persons (Ravi Yadav, Pradumn Yadav, and Dhannajay Yadav) on March 20, 2026, in a case involving allegations of attempt to murder and criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 109, 351(3), 352, and 191. The court found insufficient evidence linking the accused to the alleged incident and noted inconsistencies between the FIR and medical examination report, which showed only 5 internal injuries with no external marks. The accused were released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with strict conditions including regular appearance before the investigating officer and court, prohibition from leaving the country without permission, and non-commission of further offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts