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
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
Petitioner(s)
Basantlal Yadav
Respondent(s)
State Uttar Pradesh
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Special Judge SC/ST Pev. of Atrocities Act Bhadohi
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 05-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 17-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 12-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts