RAJU JAISWAL vs State Gov. — 1006/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),123,352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 16th April 2026.
Bail Application.
CNR: UPGK010023892026
Filing Number
2222/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
1006/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
45-Add. Dist. Judge/FTC-1 (Crime Against Women)
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
FIR Details
FIR Number
98
Police Station
Bansgoan
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJU JAISWAL
Adv. BHANU PRATAP PANDEY
Respondent(s)
State Gov.
Hearing History
Judge: 45-Add. Dist. Judge/FTC-1 (Crime Against Women)
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 08-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 07-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 06-04-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court for crimes against women), Gorakhpur, granted bail to the accused Raj Jaysawal in Criminal Case No. 98/2026 under IPC Sections 64(1), 123, 351(3), 352, finding that the prosecution's allegations appeared to be influenced by a conspiracy between the complainant's family and the accused's wife. The court noted contradictions in the victim's statements, the absence of medical evidence despite claims of rape, and suspicious circumstances including counter-FIRs filed by the victim's husband and wife against each other, leading to the conclusion that sufficient grounds existed for bail with conditions including a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and compliance with court proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court for crimes against women), Gorakhpur, granted bail to the accused Raj Jaysawal in Criminal Case No. 98/2026 under IPC Sections 64(1), 123, 351(3), 352, finding that the prosecution's allegations appeared to be influenced by a conspiracy between the complainant's family and the accused's wife. The court noted contradictions in the victim's statements, the absence of medical evidence despite claims of rape, and suspicious circumstances including counter-FIRs filed by the victim's husband and wife against each other, leading to the conclusion that sufficient grounds existed for bail with conditions including a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and compliance with court proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts