CHANDRA PAL vs State Government — 664/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 3/5(1). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPRB010016262026

Filing Number

1522/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

664/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-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

83

Police Station

GURBUXGANJ

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 3/5(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRA PAL

    Adv. SHIV KUMAR

  2. 2.PHOOLMATI

  3. 3.BABU LAL

  4. 4.SANTOSH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Court, Raebareli, granted bail to four accused (Chandra Pal, Phulmati, Babu Lal, and Santosh Kumar) charged under the UP Anti-Conversion Law, 2021. The court found the charge based primarily on seized diary and malaa (allegedly Christian religious material), but accepted the defense's argument that the accused were merely visiting for matrimonial purposes and became victims of a false complaint rooted in a prior land dispute. The court imposed conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, two sureties, and restrictions on witness tampering and adjournment petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Session Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 664/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court, Raebareli, granted bail to four accused (Chandra Pal, Phulmati, Babu Lal, and Santosh Kumar) charged under the UP Anti-Conversion Law, 2021. The court found the charge based primarily on seized diary and malaa (allegedly Christian religious material), but accepted the defense's argument that the accused were merely visiting for matrimonial purposes and became victims of a false complaint rooted in a prior land dispute. The court imposed conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, two sureties, and restrictions on witness tampering and adjournment petitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case