AARTI vs State of U.P. — 922/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),303(2),317(2),61(2). Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPSP010027732026

Filing Number

2538/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

922/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

53

Police Station

MANDI

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),303(2),317(2),61(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AARTI

    Adv. HARSHIT CHAUDHARY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Bail OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 922/2026 - AARTI v. State of U.P. The Court granted bail to petitioner Aarti, accused of theft charges under IPC §61(2), 318(4), 303(2), and 317(2), finding insufficient evidence linking her to the alleged jewelry theft. The Court noted the case file contained no independent witness corroboration, no prior criminal history, and emphasized the petitioner's status as a domestic widow with no prior offenses, observing she had been in judicial custody since February 21, 2026. Bail was approved on personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of equal amount, subject to conditions including court appearance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    hearing

    District Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 922/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 922/2026 - AARTI v. State of U.P. The Court granted bail to petitioner Aarti, accused of theft charges under IPC §61(2), 318(4), 303(2), and 317(2), finding insufficient evidence linking her to the alleged jewelry theft. The Court noted the case file contained no independent witness corroboration, no prior criminal history, and emphasized the petitioner's status as a domestic widow with no prior offenses, observing she had been in judicial custody since February 21, 2026. Bail was approved on personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of equal amount, subject to conditions including court appearance and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case