RAVINDRA KUMAR URF CHHOTU vs STATE OF U.P. — 1838/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305A,317. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPLK010038932026

Filing Number

3408/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

1838/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District & Session Judge

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 10-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

655

Police Station

PGI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305A,317

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAVINDRA KUMAR URF CHHOTU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Bail Petition is allowedView PDF

    Case Summary: 1838/2026 The Sessions Court in Lucknow granted bail to Ravindra Kumar @ Chhotu, accused of theft under Sections 305(A) and 317(2) BNS in connection with a house burglary on 26.12.2025. The applicant, in jail since 10.03.2026, claimed false implication and absence of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of jewellery and Rs. 17,300. The court found sufficient grounds for bail despite the prosecution citing a criminal history of 13 prior cases, ordering his release on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  5. 20-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1838/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1838/2026 The Sessions Court in Lucknow granted bail to Ravindra Kumar @ Chhotu, accused of theft under Sections 305(A) and 317(2) BNS in connection with a house burglary on 26.12.2025. The applicant, in jail since 10.03.2026, claimed false implication and absence of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of jewellery and Rs. 17,300. The court found sufficient grounds for bail despite the prosecution citing a criminal history of 13 prior cases, ordering his release on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 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