Manohar Lal vs State of UP — 351/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,351(3). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPRP010016332026

Filing Number

1576/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

351/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Adj II

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

22

Police Station

KHAJURIA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manohar Lal

    Adv. Ram Singh Lodhi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The court rejected Manohar Lal's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving allegations of rape under BNS sections 69 and 351(3). The complainant, a 25-year-old woman, alleged that Manohar Lal promised marriage while maintaining a sexual relationship with her for four years, then refused to marry her; his family allegedly threatened her life. The court found the charges serious based on the complainant's detailed statements and rejected bail, noting insufficient grounds for anticipatory bail given the gravity of the alleged offenses and circumstances of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Adj II

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Adj II

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Adj II

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 351/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Manohar Lal's anticipatory bail petition in a case involving allegations of rape under BNS sections 69 and 351(3). The complainant, a 25-year-old woman, alleged that Manohar Lal promised marriage while maintaining a sexual relationship with her for four years, then refused to marry her; his family allegedly threatened her life. The court found the charges serious based on the complainant's detailed statements and rejected bail, noting insufficient grounds for anticipatory bail given the gravity of the alleged offenses and circumstances of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case