State Government vs ramjilal — 727/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),352,351(2),74,125. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010015632026

Filing Number

1392/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

727/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

102

Police Station

NARHAULI Highway

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),352,351(2),74,125

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ramjilal

  2. 2.Khemchand

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura granted anticipatory bail to applicants Ramji Lal and Khemchand in a case involving charges under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 74, and 125 of the BNS. The court found that while allegations of assault and threats were serious, the applicants had no criminal history, the FIR contained procedural discrepancies (delayed filing without stated reasons, missing time details), and both parties were neighbors with prior disputes over an RO plant, warranting grant of bail with strict conditions including cooperation in trial, non-tampering with witnesses, and restrictions on leaving the country. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 727/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura granted anticipatory bail to applicants Ramji Lal and Khemchand in a case involving charges under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 74, and 125 of the BNS. The court found that while allegations of assault and threats were serious, the applicants had no criminal history, the FIR contained procedural discrepancies (delayed filing without stated reasons, missing time details), and both parties were neighbors with prior disputes over an RO plant, warranting grant of bail with strict conditions including cooperation in trial, non-tampering with witnesses, and restrictions on leaving the country. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case