State Government vs Vipin Singh Yadav — 776/2026

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

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010016472026

Filing Number

1469/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

776/2026

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

584

Police Station

FARAH

Year

2017

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

    The Additional Sessions Court in Mathura rejected the bail petition of accused Vipin Singh Yadav (Case No. 584/2017) charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 for allegedly defrauding complainants of investment money in a real estate project without delivering promised flats. The court found sufficient grounds to believe the accused conspired with co-accused to commit fraud affecting multiple victims, and noted his criminal history of 46 similar cases, making bail inappropriate at this stage. 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. 776/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Court in Mathura rejected the bail petition of accused Vipin Singh Yadav (Case No. 584/2017) charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 for allegedly defrauding complainants of investment money in a real estate project without delivering promised flats. The court found sufficient grounds to believe the accused conspired with co-accused to commit fraud affecting multiple victims, and noted his criminal history of 46 similar cases, making bail inappropriate at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case