Pradeep Kumar Maurya vs State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey — 199/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),317(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

BAIL APPLICATION

CNR: UPSN010006362026

Filing Number

577/2026

Filing Date

21-Feb-2026

Registration No

199/2026

Registration Date

21-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I Bhadohi

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

420

Police Station

SURIAYAWN

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),317(4)

Petitioner(s)

1.Pradeep Kumar Maurya

Adv. Ajay Kumar Saroj

Respondent(s)

1.State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
10-Mar-2026

PDF of Bail OrderView PDF

Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Bhadohi rejected the anticipatory bail application of Pradeep Kumar Maurya in a case involving theft of electrical wires (IPC Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 317(4)). The court found sufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime, including co-accused statements, CCTV footage, and recovered materials, and determined that the grounds for anticipatory bail were inadequate given the serious nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
10-Mar-2026

Disposed

Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I Bhadohi
09-Mar-2026

Hearing

Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I Bhadohi
05-Mar-2026

Hearing

Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I Bhadohi
26-Feb-2026

Hearing

Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I Bhadohi
21-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
21-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 199/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Bhadohi rejected the anticipatory bail application of Pradeep Kumar Maurya in a case involving theft of electrical wires (IPC Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 317(4)). The court found sufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime, including co-accused statements, CCTV footage, and recovered materials, and determined that the grounds for anticipatory bail were inadequate given the serious nature of the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.