Sitaram vs State of U.P. — 125/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(3). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 16th March 2026.

Anticipatory Bail App - Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 CrPC

CNR: UPJL010011452026

Case disposed

Filing Number

1118/2026

Filing Date

21-02-2026

Registration No

125/2026

Registration Date

21-02-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court

Judge

5-Spl. Judge D.A.A

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

07

Police Station

KOTWALI ORAI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(3)

Petitioner(s)

Sitaram

Adv. Alok Dixit

Respondent(s)

State of U.P.

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Spl. Judge D.A.A

16-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Hearing

28-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Copy of Judgement

Case Summary The Special Judge (D.A.A) at Jalaun rejected the anticipatory bail application of Sitaram (accused in FIR No. 07/2025 under Section 316(3) BNS) filed on March 16, 2026. The court found that Sitaram was allegedly involved in the theft of 100 MT mustard seeds worth ₹13,15,404 loaded on a truck, and determined that sufficient grounds existed to deny bail based on his: (i) criminal history with 18 prior criminal cases registered; (ii) continuous evasion despite multiple raids at his address; (iii) non-cooperation with investigation; and (iv) an existing non-bailable warrant issued against him on December 17, 2025. The court held that these circumstances did not warrant granting anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Special Judge (D.A.A) at Jalaun rejected the anticipatory bail application of Sitaram (accused in FIR No. 07/2025 under Section 316(3) BNS) filed on March 16, 2026. The court found that Sitaram was allegedly involved in the theft of 100 MT mustard seeds worth ₹13,15,404 loaded on a truck, and determined that sufficient grounds existed to deny bail based on his: (i) criminal history with 18 prior criminal cases registered; (ii) continuous evasion despite multiple raids at his address; (iii) non-cooperation with investigation; and (iv) an existing non-bailable warrant issued against him on December 17, 2025. The court held that these circumstances did not warrant granting anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case