Rambahadur alias Bahadur Nishad vs State of UP — 134/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),85,80(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 28th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPJL010011872026
Filing Number
1162/2026
Filing Date
25-Feb-2026
Registration No
134/2026
Registration Date
25-Feb-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District & Session Judge
Decision Date
28-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 17-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
12
Police Station
KADAURA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Rambahadur alias Bahadur Nishad
Adv. Jagannath Nishad
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of UP
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgementView PDF
Summary The court rejected the bail application (No. 134/2026) of accused Rambahaudur Uruf Bahadur Nishadh, filed in a dowry death case (FIR No. 12/2026) registered under IPC Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused was charged with conspiring with co-accused to murder his daughter-in-law Kamla for refusing to bring additional dowry of one lakh rupees; the court found the accusations serious and the grounds for bail insufficient, ordering his continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Mar-2026
Disposed
District & Session Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 134/2026
Summary The court rejected the bail application (No. 134/2026) of accused Rambahaudur Uruf Bahadur Nishadh, filed in a dowry death case (FIR No. 12/2026) registered under IPC Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused was charged with conspiring with co-accused to murder his daughter-in-law Kamla for refusing to bring additional dowry of one lakh rupees; the court found the accusations serious and the grounds for bail insufficient, ordering his continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts