Pavan Seth vs State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey — 233/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),317(2),61(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 13th March 2026.
BAIL APPLICATION
CNR: UPSN010007222026
Filing Number
650/2026
Filing Date
05-Mar-2026
Registration No
233/2026
Registration Date
05-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
563
Police Station
GOPIGANJ
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Pavan Seth
Adv. Raj Bihari Mishra
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
PDF of Bail OrderView PDF
Summary The Sessions Court at Bhadohi granted bail to two accused, Jyotish Dube and Pawan Seth, in a case involving alleged theft of gold and silver jewelry from a jeweler's shop on December 13, 2025, in Gopiganj. The court found that the accused were not named in the original FIR, lacked prior criminal history, and had been in custody since February 22, 2026, making bail appropriate on the grounds that the offense was cognizable by magistrate court and sufficient grounds existed for release. Each accused was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including court attendance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 233/2026
Summary The Sessions Court at Bhadohi granted bail to two accused, Jyotish Dube and Pawan Seth, in a case involving alleged theft of gold and silver jewelry from a jeweler's shop on December 13, 2025, in Gopiganj. The court found that the accused were not named in the original FIR, lacked prior criminal history, and had been in custody since February 22, 2026, making bail appropriate on the grounds that the offense was cognizable by magistrate court and sufficient grounds existed for release. Each accused was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including court attendance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts