State Government vs Vipin Singh Yadav — 779/2026

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

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010016462026

Filing Number

1468/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

779/2026

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

98

Police Station

FARAH

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code 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

    Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the bail application of Vipin Singh Yadav in FIR No. 98/2018 under IPC sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471. The accused was charged with defrauding the complainant and his wife of ₹11,00,000 by falsely selling two flats through a company without delivering the property or refunding the money. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of serious offenses including criminal breach of trust and forgery, noting the accused's criminal history of 46 similar cases, and determined bail was not warranted. 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. 779/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the bail application of Vipin Singh Yadav in FIR No. 98/2018 under IPC sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, and 471. The accused was charged with defrauding the complainant and his wife of ₹11,00,000 by falsely selling two flats through a company without delivering the property or refunding the money. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of serious offenses including criminal breach of trust and forgery, noting the accused's criminal history of 46 similar cases, and determined bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case