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
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
Petitioner(s)
Sushil kumar
Adv. Ram Singh Yadav
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADJ I
Disposed
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts