State Government vs Pratap — 663/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3),190,109(1). Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010014732026

Filing Number

1316/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

663/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

111

Police Station

Jait

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3),190,109(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pratap

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of four accused (Pratap, Prahlaad, Munesh, and Surendra) charged under IPC Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, and 109(1) for allegedly attempting to murder the complainant by firing a gun during a village panchayat in Mathura. The court found the charges serious in nature, involving the use of firearm in a public setting with intent to kill, and concluded there was sufficient evidence against the accused to warrant their prosecution without granting interim bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 663/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of four accused (Pratap, Prahlaad, Munesh, and Surendra) charged under IPC Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, and 109(1) for allegedly attempting to murder the complainant by firing a gun during a village panchayat in Mathura. The court found the charges serious in nature, involving the use of firearm in a public setting with intent to kill, and concluded there was sufficient evidence against the accused to warrant their prosecution without granting interim bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case