State Government vs BHARTI SHARM — 690/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),336(3),338,340(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 16th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPMT010015102026
Filing Number
1347/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
690/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge, Mathura
Judge
4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
101
Police Station
KOTWALI
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHARTI SHARM
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary: The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the anticipatory bail application of accused Bharti Sharma and Sanjay Sharma, who were charged with defrauding the complainant of approximately 24 lakh rupees by falsely promising government jobs in agriculture and railway departments and providing fake appointment letters. The court found the charges serious, the investigation still in preliminary stages with evidence being collected, and no justified reason to believe the accused were falsely implicated, rendering advance bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
17-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 690/2026
Summary: The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the anticipatory bail application of accused Bharti Sharma and Sanjay Sharma, who were charged with defrauding the complainant of approximately 24 lakh rupees by falsely promising government jobs in agriculture and railway departments and providing fake appointment letters. The court found the charges serious, the investigation still in preliminary stages with evidence being collected, and no justified reason to believe the accused were falsely implicated, rendering advance bail inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts