RAJAT SHAHNI vs State Gov. — 1010/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023842026

Filing Number

2217/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1010/2026

Registration Date

11-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--Allowed

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

56

Police Station

Gagaha

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,352,351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJAT SHAHNI

    Adv. PRADEEP KUMAR DUBEY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Gov.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court for Crimes Against Women), Gorakhpur, granted bail to the accused Rajat Sahni in criminal case No. 56/2026 under IPC Sections 69, 352, 351(3), finding that the victim's sworn statement contradicted the prosecution's allegations of forced sexual contact and blackmail. The court noted the victim was a literate, adult woman capable of understanding her interests, and that she explicitly denied being coerced, threatened, or having intimate photos/videos made, thereby finding insufficient grounds to deny bail given the lack of criminal history and contradictory evidence. 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. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1010/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court for Crimes Against Women), Gorakhpur, granted bail to the accused Rajat Sahni in criminal case No. 56/2026 under IPC Sections 69, 352, 351(3), finding that the victim's sworn statement contradicted the prosecution's allegations of forced sexual contact and blackmail. The court noted the victim was a literate, adult woman capable of understanding her interests, and that she explicitly denied being coerced, threatened, or having intimate photos/videos made, thereby finding insufficient grounds to deny bail given the lack of criminal history and contradictory evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case