State Government vs Vipin Singh Yadav — 780/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420,409,406,467,468,471. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010016452026

Filing Number

1467/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

780/2026

Registration Date

20-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

168

Police Station

FARAH

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420,409,406,467,468,471

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vipin Singh Yadav

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the bail application of Vipin Singh Yadav in a fraud case (Crime No. 168/2018) involving charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused, along with co-conspirators, systematically defrauded the complainant's family by taking advance payments and installments for flat bookings without delivering possession or refunding money. The court noted the serious nature of the charges, similar criminal history (46 prior cases), and that co-accused's bail was previously rejected, thereby dismissing the bail petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 3

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 780/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the bail application of Vipin Singh Yadav in a fraud case (Crime No. 168/2018) involving charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused, along with co-conspirators, systematically defrauded the complainant's family by taking advance payments and installments for flat bookings without delivering possession or refunding money. The court noted the serious nature of the charges, similar criminal history (46 prior cases), and that co-accused's bail was previously rejected, thereby dismissing the bail petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case