Vishal Awasthi vs Uttar Pradesh Sarkar Advocate - DGC Criminal — 763/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 351(2). Disposed: Contested--BAIL CANCELLED on 28th April 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPSI010017542026

Case disposed

Filing Number

1650/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

763/2026

Registration Date

12-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

28th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL CANCELLED

FIR Details

FIR Number

71

Police Station

RAMKOT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 351(2)
Information Technology Act Section 67

Petitioner(s)

Vishal Awasthi

Adv. Deepak Kumar Rathaur

Respondent(s)

Uttar Pradesh Sarkar Advocate - DGC Criminal

Hearing History

Judge: 4-3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge

28-04-2026

Disposed

21-04-2026

Hearing Applications

16-04-2026

Hearing Applications

09-04-2026

Hearing Applications

04-04-2026

Hearing Applications

Final Orders / Judgements

28-04-2026
Copy of bail order

Case 763/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Sitapur rejected Vishal Awasthi's bail petition in a case involving charges under BNS Section 351(2) and Information Technology Act Section 67 (2008). The court found that the accused had allegedly created non-consensual intimate videos of a minor girl (born 05.07.2008) without her consent, shared them on social media, and made threatening statements. The court determined the crime was serious in nature and that insufficient grounds existed to grant bail, considering the severity of offenses against a child and the ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 763/2026 Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Sitapur rejected Vishal Awasthi's bail petition in a case involving charges under BNS Section 351(2) and Information Technology Act Section 67 (2008). The court found that the accused had allegedly created non-consensual intimate videos of a minor girl (born 05.07.2008) without her consent, shared them on social media, and made threatening statements. The court determined the crime was serious in nature and that insufficient grounds existed to grant bail, considering the severity of offenses against a child and the ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case