Basantlal Yadav vs State Uttar Pradesh — 66/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147.323.504.506.364.342.395.325.201. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

BAIL APPLICATION

CNR: UPSN010001742026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

154/2026

Filing Date

20-01-2026

Registration No

66/2026

Registration Date

20-01-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

10-Special Judge SC/ST Pev. of Atrocities Act Bhadohi

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

22

Police Station

DURGA GANJ

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 147.323.504.506.364.342.395.325.201
Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act Section 3(2)5 sc/st

Petitioner(s)

Basantlal Yadav

Respondent(s)

State Uttar Pradesh

Hearing History

Judge: 10-Special Judge SC/ST Pev. of Atrocities Act Bhadohi

09-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

Hearing

05-03-2026

Hearing

17-02-2026

Hearing

12-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
PDF of Bail Order

Court Decision Summary The Special Judge (SC/ST Act) at Bhadohi granted bail to the accused Basantlal Yadav and Santlal Yadav in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 147, 364, 323, 504, 506, 342, 395, 325, 201, and SC/ST Act Sections 3(2)(5). The court found that the accused had been on interim bail since January 20, 2026 without misusing it, had no prior criminal history, and a cross-case filed by the complainant suggested disputes between parties, warranting bail approval. Each accused was released on two bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation during trial, and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Special Judge (SC/ST Act) at Bhadohi granted bail to the accused Basantlal Yadav and Santlal Yadav in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 147, 364, 323, 504, 506, 342, 395, 325, 201, and SC/ST Act Sections 3(2)(5). The court found that the accused had been on interim bail since January 20, 2026 without misusing it, had no prior criminal history, and a cross-case filed by the complainant suggested disputes between parties, warranting bail approval. Each accused was released on two bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation during trial, and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction. 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