Sudhir Dubey vs State of Uttar Pradesh — 247/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

BAIL APPLICATION

CNR: UPSN010007742026

Filing Number

697/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

247/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

98

Police Station

GOPIGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sudhir Dubey

    Adv. Chhotelal Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    PDF of Bail OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Special Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) rejected the bail petition of Sudhir Dubey, accused under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangster Act, 1986 for his alleged involvement in gang-related criminal activities including theft and attempted murder. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused was part of an organized gang and therefore did not meet the stringent bail criteria under Section 19(4) of the Gangster Act, which requires proof that the accused is not guilty and poses no risk of reoffense. The bail petition was accordingly dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 247/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Special Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) rejected the bail petition of Sudhir Dubey, accused under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangster Act, 1986 for his alleged involvement in gang-related criminal activities including theft and attempted murder. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused was part of an organized gang and therefore did not meet the stringent bail criteria under Section 19(4) of the Gangster Act, which requires proof that the accused is not guilty and poses no risk of reoffense. The bail petition was accordingly dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case