Jai Prakash Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey — 222/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),112(2),317(2),317(4),318(2),336(3),338. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 10th March 2026.
BAIL APPLICATION
CNR: UPSN010006702026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
603/2026
Filing Date
25-02-2026
Registration No
222/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
20
Police Station
KOIRAUNA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jai Prakash Yadav
Adv. Rajdhar Bind
Respondent(s)
State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey
Hearing History
Judge: 6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 25-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Additional Sessions Court (POCSO-I), Gyanpur-Bhadohi granted bail to accused Jai Prakash Yadav in criminal case no. 20/2026 under BNS sections 109(1), 112(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2), 336(3), 338 and Arms Act 4/25. The court found that while the accused had a criminal history, the first information report lacked crucial evidence—notably that the accused was not shown to have fired weapons, no police officer was injured, and the night-time incident's facts were unclear from case records. The accused was released on bail with conditions including personal bond of ₹50,000, two sureties of equal amount, cooperation during investigation, and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Additional Sessions Court (POCSO-I), Gyanpur-Bhadohi granted bail to accused Jai Prakash Yadav in criminal case no. 20/2026 under BNS sections 109(1), 112(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2), 336(3), 338 and Arms Act 4/25. The court found that while the accused had a criminal history, the first information report lacked crucial evidence—notably that the accused was not shown to have fired weapons, no police officer was injured, and the night-time incident's facts were unclear from case records. The accused was released on bail with conditions including personal bond of ₹50,000, two sureties of equal amount, cooperation during investigation, and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts