Sushil kumar vs State — 355/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 395,506. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 20th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPKJ010008692026

Filing Number

804/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

355/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

20-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 395,506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sushil kumar

    Adv. Ram Singh Yadav

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Mar-2026

    Bail petition is allowedView PDF

    Case Summary: 355/2026 Case: Sushil Kumar v. State (Bail Application 355/2026) Court: Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj Date: 20.03.2026 Decision: The court granted bail to petitioner Sushil Kumar in Special Case No. 31/2019 under IPC Sections 395 and 506 (dacoity and criminal intimidation). The petitioner was directed to furnish personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including: non-repetition of the alleged offense, no misuse of bail, and non-intimidation of witnesses or victims. The court found the allegations stemmed from a civil dispute over agricultural partnership, with the complaint lodged after a personal confrontation. Since the petitioner had already been in interim custody and no independent witness corroborated the prosecution's version, bail was deemed appropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ I

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 355/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 355/2026 Case: Sushil Kumar v. State (Bail Application 355/2026) Court: Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj Date: 20.03.2026 Decision: The court granted bail to petitioner Sushil Kumar in Special Case No. 31/2019 under IPC Sections 395 and 506 (dacoity and criminal intimidation). The petitioner was directed to furnish personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including: non-repetition of the alleged offense, no misuse of bail, and non-intimidation of witnesses or victims. The court found the allegations stemmed from a civil dispute over agricultural partnership, with the complaint lodged after a personal confrontation. Since the petitioner had already been in interim custody and no independent witness corroborated the prosecution's version, bail was deemed appropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case