ANOOP YADAV vs State Gov. — 991/2026

Case under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)D,3(1)DH. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 28th April 2026.

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023332026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

2167/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

991/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

3-ADJ/ Special Judge (SC/ ST Act)

Decision Date

28th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

FIR Details

FIR Number

109

Police Station

Uruwa

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)D,3(1)DH
Indian Penal Code Section 323,504,506

Petitioner(s)

ANOOP YADAV

Adv. ANAND KUMAR TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

State Gov.

Hearing History

Judge: 3-ADJ/ Special Judge (SC/ ST Act)

28-04-2026

Disposed

20-04-2026

Hearing

10-04-2026

Hearing

03-04-2026

Hearing

28-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

28-04-2026
Order

Summary The Additional District and Sessions Court (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur granted bail to accused Anup Yadav in bail petition no. 991/2026. The court found that while the accused was charged with assault and wrongful restraint (IPC Sections 323, 504, 506), the prosecution failed to present evidence of misuse of bail. Since the accused is already in judicial custody with no criminal history and the opposing party filed a counter-case (establishing it as a cross-case), the court approved bail with personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

10-03-2026
Order
19-03-2026
Order
28-03-2026
Order
03-04-2026
Order
10-04-2026
Order
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District and Sessions Court (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur granted bail to accused Anup Yadav in bail petition no. 991/2026. The court found that while the accused was charged with assault and wrongful restraint (IPC Sections 323, 504, 506), the prosecution failed to present evidence of misuse of bail. Since the accused is already in judicial custody with no criminal history and the opposing party filed a counter-case (establishing it as a cross-case), the court approved bail with personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case