MOHINI DEVI YADAV vs State Government — 254/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 3(5),316(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPRB010006392026
Filing Number
600/2026
Filing Date
27-Jan-2026
Registration No
254/2026
Registration Date
27-Jan-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Session Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 23-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
17
Police Station
SALON
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MOHINI DEVI YADAV
Adv. SUNEETA SINGH
-
2.SHIVSHRAN YADAV
-
3.SUKESH KUMAR URF MUKESH
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Government
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The Sessions Court in Raebareli granted bail to three accused (Mohini Devi Yadav, Shivsharan Yadav, and Sukesh Kumar) in a case involving alleged cheating and misappropriation of land sale proceeds under IPC Sections 3(5) and 316(2). The court found the accusations largely based on a disputed land transaction between an elderly blind complainant and the accused, with conflicting claims about payment and settlement, and determined that bail conditions with personal bonds of ₹50,000 each and strict court attendance requirements were appropriate given the lower offense provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Session Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Session Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 254/2026
Summary The Sessions Court in Raebareli granted bail to three accused (Mohini Devi Yadav, Shivsharan Yadav, and Sukesh Kumar) in a case involving alleged cheating and misappropriation of land sale proceeds under IPC Sections 3(5) and 316(2). The court found the accusations largely based on a disputed land transaction between an elderly blind complainant and the accused, with conflicting claims about payment and settlement, and determined that bail conditions with personal bonds of ₹50,000 each and strict court attendance requirements were appropriate given the lower offense provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts