Sushil kumar vs State — 355/2026

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

Bail Application

CNR: UPKJ010008692026

Case disposed

Filing Number

804/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

355/2026

Registration Date

12-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

20th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 395,506

Petitioner(s)

Sushil kumar

Adv. Ram Singh Yadav

Respondent(s)

State

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADJ I

20-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

20-03-2026
Bail petition is allowed

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case