CHANDRAPRAKASH PANDEY vs State Government of Uttar Pradesh — 487/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPKU010011182026

Filing Number

1065/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

487/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

329

Police Station

KOTWALI PADRAUNA

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,504,506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRAPRAKASH PANDEY

    Adv. LAXMAN SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government of Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Court, Kushinagar, rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Chandra Prakash Pandey, accused of cheating (IPC §420, 504, 506, 406). The court found credible evidence that Pandey received ₹13 lakhs from the complainant for property transfer but neither transferred the property nor returned the remaining ₹11.16 lakhs, and allegedly threatened the complainant with violence when demanding repayment. The court concluded the charges were serious and the accused lacked viable defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 487/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court, Kushinagar, rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Chandra Prakash Pandey, accused of cheating (IPC §420, 504, 506, 406). The court found credible evidence that Pandey received ₹13 lakhs from the complainant for property transfer but neither transferred the property nor returned the remaining ₹11.16 lakhs, and allegedly threatened the complainant with violence when demanding repayment. The court concluded the charges were serious and the accused lacked viable defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case