Amit vs State — 112/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),352,351(2). Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPKJ010002392026

Filing Number

223/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

112/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Special Judge SC/St Act

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

THATHIA

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),352,351(2)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)(द)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Amit

    Adv. Ritesh kumar verma

  2. 2.Sumit urph Golu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Bail petition is allowedView PDF

    The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, granted bail to petitioners Amit and Sumit (alias Golu) in Case 112/2026, charged under IPC Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(d) for allegedly assaulting a complainant over a boundary dispute and using caste-based slurs. The court found sufficient grounds for bail, noting the absence of medical evidence, no prior criminal history, and that the case was based on disputed facts regarding a field boundary cutting incident. The accused were ordered released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Special Judge SC/St Act

  4. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge SC/St Act

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 112/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, granted bail to petitioners Amit and Sumit (alias Golu) in Case 112/2026, charged under IPC Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(d) for allegedly assaulting a complainant over a boundary dispute and using caste-based slurs. The court found sufficient grounds for bail, noting the absence of medical evidence, no prior criminal history, and that the case was based on disputed facts regarding a field boundary cutting incident. The accused were ordered released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case