Nitin Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey — 243/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),61(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 13th March 2026.

BAIL APPLICATION

CNR: UPSN010007592026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

684/2026

Filing Date

07-03-2026

Registration No

243/2026

Registration Date

07-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

563

Police Station

GOPIGANJ

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),61(2)

Petitioner(s)

Nitin Pandey

Adv. Sharada Prasad Mishra

Respondent(s)

State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi

13-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Hearing

09-03-2026

Hearing

07-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
PDF of Bail Order

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court at Bhadohi granted bail to accused Nitin Pandey in a cheating case (IPC Sections 318(4) and 61(2) BNS) involving alleged fraudulent acquisition of silver jewelry worth ₹65,000 from a jeweler. The court found that the accused was not named in the original FIR, his name emerged only through co-accused statements, co-accused had already been granted bail, and there was no prior criminal history, making bail appropriate. The accused was released on personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, on condition of court attendance and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court at Bhadohi granted bail to accused Nitin Pandey in a cheating case (IPC Sections 318(4) and 61(2) BNS) involving alleged fraudulent acquisition of silver jewelry worth ₹65,000 from a jeweler. The court found that the accused was not named in the original FIR, his name emerged only through co-accused statements, co-accused had already been granted bail, and there was no prior criminal history, making bail appropriate. The accused was released on personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, on condition of court attendance and non-intimidation of 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