ADITYA PATEL URF CHUMBHI vs State Government — 669/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPRB010016442026

Filing Number

1540/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

669/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Session Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

35

Police Station

DEEH

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ADITYA PATEL URF CHUMBHI

    Adv. SUKH RAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Court at Raebareli granted bail to Aditya Patel (alias Chumbhi), a 20-year-old accused of motorcycle theft under sections 303(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code 2023. The court found insufficient independent corroborating evidence for the alleged recovery and arrest, noting the absence of eyewitnesses to the seizure, and accepted that the accused had already been imprisoned since March 5, 2026. Bail was granted on condition of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and strict conditions including regular court appearance and non-interference with prosecution witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Session Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 669/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court at Raebareli granted bail to Aditya Patel (alias Chumbhi), a 20-year-old accused of motorcycle theft under sections 303(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code 2023. The court found insufficient independent corroborating evidence for the alleged recovery and arrest, noting the absence of eyewitnesses to the seizure, and accepted that the accused had already been imprisoned since March 5, 2026. Bail was granted on condition of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and strict conditions including regular 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