State Government vs Vipin Singh Yadav — 775/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,409,406,467,468,471. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 10th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010016432026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1465/2026

Filing Date

20-02-2026

Registration No

775/2026

Registration Date

20-02-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

FIR Details

FIR Number

292

Police Station

FARAH

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,409,406,467,468,471

Petitioner(s)

State Government

Respondent(s)

Vipin Singh Yadav

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

10-03-2026

Disposed

27-02-2026

Hearing

20-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Copy of Order

Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Mathura rejected the bail application of Vipin Singh Yadav (Bail Petition No. 775/2026) in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471. The court found substantial evidence that the accused, along with co-conspirators, fraudulently induced the complainant to invest ₹4,60,000 for a flat that was never delivered, nor was the money refunded, and noted the accused's involvement in 46 similar criminal cases. The bail petition was dismissed, holding that no sufficient grounds existed to grant bail given the serious nature of the offenses and evidence against the applicant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Mathura rejected the bail application of Vipin Singh Yadav (Bail Petition No. 775/2026) in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471. The court found substantial evidence that the accused, along with co-conspirators, fraudulently induced the complainant to invest ₹4,60,000 for a flat that was never delivered, nor was the money refunded, and noted the accused's involvement in 46 similar criminal cases. The bail petition was dismissed, holding that no sufficient grounds existed to grant bail given the serious nature of the offenses and evidence against the applicant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge, Mathura All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case