VEDRAM SO RANGI LAL vs State of U.P. — 27/2026

Case under --- Section 109,1,118,1,191,2,351,3,352,115,2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPSL070008892026

Filing Number

889/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

27/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

Court

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chandausi

Judge

1-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Outlying Court Chandausi

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

--- Section 109,1,118,1,191,2,351,3,352,115,2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VEDRAM SO RANGI LAL

    Adv. VINOD KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Additional District and Sessions Judge in Chandausi, Sambhal, granted bail to the accused Vedram in a case involving charges under IPC sections 109(1), 118(1), 191(2), 351(3), 352, and 115(2). The court found that the allegations against the accused were based on false and baseless facts, noting inconsistencies in the FIR and lack of concrete evidence of his direct participation in the alleged assault. The bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond of ₹50,000 with a surety of equal amount, with instructions that the accused cooperate fully with the investigation and not tamper with evidence or commit further offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge Outlying Court Chandausi

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    For Bail

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge Outlying Court Chandausi

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 27/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District and Sessions Judge in Chandausi, Sambhal, granted bail to the accused Vedram in a case involving charges under IPC sections 109(1), 118(1), 191(2), 351(3), 352, and 115(2). The court found that the allegations against the accused were based on false and baseless facts, noting inconsistencies in the FIR and lack of concrete evidence of his direct participation in the alleged assault. The bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond of ₹50,000 with a surety of equal amount, with instructions that the accused cooperate fully with the investigation and not tamper with evidence or commit further offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case