Rajkumar vs Uttar Pradesh Sarkar Advocate - DGC Criminal — 761/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305A,331(4),317(2). Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 19th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPSI010017592026

Case disposed

Filing Number

1655/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

761/2026

Registration Date

12-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

19th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

20

Police Station

RAUSA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305A,331(4),317(2)

Petitioner(s)

Rajkumar

Adv. Aditya Kumar Verma

Respondent(s)

Uttar Pradesh Sarkar Advocate - DGC Criminal

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge

19-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Hearing Applications

Final Orders / Judgements

19-03-2026
Copy of bail order

Case 761/2026 Summary The District and Sessions Court, Sitapur granted bail to accused Raj Kumar in a theft case (Crime No. 20/2026) under BNS sections 305(A), 331(4), and 317(2). The court found reasonable grounds for bail based on several weaknesses in the prosecution's case: the accused was not named in the FIR (lodged against unknown persons), no independent eyewitnesses were present at the crime or recovery, the complainant was not an eyewitness, and no witnesses were cited in the recovery memo. The accused, who had been in jail since March 1, 2026, has no prior convictions. He was released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 761/2026 Summary The District and Sessions Court, Sitapur granted bail to accused Raj Kumar in a theft case (Crime No. 20/2026) under BNS sections 305(A), 331(4), and 317(2). The court found reasonable grounds for bail based on several weaknesses in the prosecution's case: the accused was not named in the FIR (lodged against unknown persons), no independent eyewitnesses were present at the crime or recovery, the complainant was not an eyewitness, and no witnesses were cited in the recovery memo. The accused, who had been in jail since March 1, 2026, has no prior convictions. He was released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case