Amardeep vs State Government — 1318/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,34. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 16th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPGZ010029572026
Filing Number
2772/2026
Filing Date
27-Feb-2026
Registration No
1318/2026
Registration Date
27-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
5-A.D.J. Court No. 4
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
69
Police Station
Cyber Crime
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Amardeep
Adv. Kuldeep singh
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Government
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
16-Mar-2026
bail orderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad granted bail to the accused Amardeep in a cybercrime case involving an online trading fraud scheme where the victim was defrauded of approximately ₹6.88 lakh. The court found that while the accused's bank account contained funds traceable to the victim's transactions, there was insufficient evidence of the accused's direct involvement in the fraud, no prior criminal history was established, and the accused had been in jail custody since September 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1318/2026
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad granted bail to the accused Amardeep in a cybercrime case involving an online trading fraud scheme where the victim was defrauded of approximately ₹6.88 lakh. The court found that while the accused's bank account contained funds traceable to the victim's transactions, there was insufficient evidence of the accused's direct involvement in the fraud, no prior criminal history was established, and the accused had been in jail custody since September 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts