State Government vs SHRIMAN ALIAS GOVIND — 852/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),115(2),75,,76,352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010017842026

Filing Number

1595/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

852/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

1-District & Session Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11

Police Station

MANTH

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1),115(2),75,,76,352,351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHRIMAN ALIAS GOVIND

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Court, Mathura granted conditional bail to the accused Shriman (alias Govind) in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 64(1), 115(2), 75, 76, 352, and 351(3). The court found that the prosecution's case appeared to be a case of molestation rather than rape, noting inconsistencies in the FIR, the victim's inability to identify the perpetrator due to poor eyesight, and supporting affidavits from witness women who were present at the time. The accused was ordered released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to standard conditions including court appearance and non-interference with prosecution witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 852/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court, Mathura granted conditional bail to the accused Shriman (alias Govind) in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 64(1), 115(2), 75, 76, 352, and 351(3). The court found that the prosecution's case appeared to be a case of molestation rather than rape, noting inconsistencies in the FIR, the victim's inability to identify the perpetrator due to poor eyesight, and supporting affidavits from witness women who were present at the time. The accused was ordered released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to standard conditions including court appearance and non-interference with prosecution witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case