SHIVKANTI vs STATE — 183/2026
Case under Essential Commodities Act Section 3/7. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 16th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPRN010003102026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
294/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
183/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge / Spl. Judge (D.A.A.)
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
164
Police Station
GAJNER
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHIVKANTI
Adv. GURDEEP SINGH SENGAR
Respondent(s)
STATE
Hearing History
Judge: 4-IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge / Spl. Judge (D.A.A.)
Disposed
For Disposal
For Disposal
For Disposal
For Disposal
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | For Disposal | |
| 23-02-2026 | For Disposal | |
| 09-02-2026 | For Disposal | |
| 02-02-2026 | For Disposal |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shivkanti, a fair price shop dealer accused under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Section 3/7) and the Legal Metrology Act (Section 35). The court found that serious irregularities were allegedly committed, including collecting fingerprints on e-POS machines without distributing foodgrains, maintaining incomplete stock registers, and engaging in black market operations. The court held that the grave nature of the offense and insufficient grounds for bail at this stage warranted rejection of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shivkanti, a fair price shop dealer accused under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Section 3/7) and the Legal Metrology Act (Section 35). The court found that serious irregularities were allegedly committed, including collecting fingerprints on e-POS machines without distributing foodgrains, maintaining incomplete stock registers, and engaging in black market operations. The court held that the grave nature of the offense and insufficient grounds for bail at this stage warranted rejection of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts