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
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
Petitioner(s)
Sitaram
Adv. Alok Dixit
Respondent(s)
State of U.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Spl. Judge D.A.A
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 28-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts