KULDEEP vs STATE OF UP — 986/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2),115(2),352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023242026

Filing Number

2165/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

986/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

45-Add. Dist. Judge/Ftc-1 (Crime Against Women)

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

685

Police Station

Campierganj

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2),115(2),352,351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KULDEEP

    Adv. VINAY KUMAR PANDEY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court rejected the bail application of Kuldeep Paswan, who was accused of committing rape, assault, and making threats against the victim over four years, including uploading obscene videos on social media on November 3, 2025. The court found prima facie evidence of rape based on the victim's statements and rejected the defense argument that the relationship was consensual, holding that grounds for bail were insufficient given the gravity and nature of the offenses charged under BNS sections 64(2), 115(2), 352, and 351(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Add. Dist. Judge/Ftc-1 (Crime Against Women)

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Add. Dist. Judge/Ftc-1 (Crime Against Women)

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 986/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the bail application of Kuldeep Paswan, who was accused of committing rape, assault, and making threats against the victim over four years, including uploading obscene videos on social media on November 3, 2025. The court found prima facie evidence of rape based on the victim's statements and rejected the defense argument that the relationship was consensual, holding that grounds for bail were insufficient given the gravity and nature of the offenses charged under BNS sections 64(2), 115(2), 352, and 351(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case