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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),112(2),317(2),317(4),318(2),336(3),338
Arms Act Section 4/25

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

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Hearing

06-03-2026

Hearing

25-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
PDF of Bail Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case