State Government vs Deepak saini — 607/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),123,127(2),352,351(3),. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 24th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPMT010013582026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1218/2026
Filing Date
11-02-2026
Registration No
607/2026
Registration Date
11-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge, Mathura
Judge
4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
VRINDAVAN
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government
Respondent(s)
Deepak saini
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 19-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 24-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 11-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court granted conditional bail to Deepak Saini, who was accused of rape, blackmail, extortion, and criminal intimidation under BNS sections 64(1), 123, 127(2), 352, and 351(3). The court found that while the complainant was a married woman with children involved in an 11-month relationship with the accused, the FIR was filed suspiciously soon after his marriage to another woman, suggesting possible vindictiveness rather than genuine victimization. The court noted lack of video evidence, independent witnesses, and inconsistencies in the FIR, and ordered his release on a bond of ₹1,50,000 with two sureties and standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court granted conditional bail to Deepak Saini, who was accused of rape, blackmail, extortion, and criminal intimidation under BNS sections 64(1), 123, 127(2), 352, and 351(3). The court found that while the complainant was a married woman with children involved in an 11-month relationship with the accused, the FIR was filed suspiciously soon after his marriage to another woman, suggesting possible vindictiveness rather than genuine victimization. The court noted lack of video evidence, independent witnesses, and inconsistencies in the FIR, and ordered his release on a bond of ₹1,50,000 with two sureties and standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts