State Government vs Bali alias ved prakash — 610/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2),(f),351(3),67a. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010013512026

Filing Number

1211/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

610/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

1-District & Session Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

270

Police Station

MANTH

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2),(f),351(3),67a

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bali alias ved prakash

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Court at Mathura rejected the bail petition of the accused Bali alias Vedprakash, who was charged with rape, creating obscene videos, blackmail, and threatening the victim and her husband under IPC Sections 64(2)(f), 351(3), and the IT Act. The court found the allegations to be serious in nature, supported by the victim's testimony under Section 183 BNSS, corroborating witness statements from 11 others, and forensic reports on the viral videos, thereby denying bail on grounds that no justified reason was shown to establish false implication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 610/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Court at Mathura rejected the bail petition of the accused Bali alias Vedprakash, who was charged with rape, creating obscene videos, blackmail, and threatening the victim and her husband under IPC Sections 64(2)(f), 351(3), and the IT Act. The court found the allegations to be serious in nature, supported by the victim's testimony under Section 183 BNSS, corroborating witness statements from 11 others, and forensic reports on the viral videos, thereby denying bail on grounds that no justified reason was shown to establish false implication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case