PARMAL vs State of U.P. — 1067/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPSP010032372026

Filing Number

2972/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

1067/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

BEHAT

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,420,504,506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARMAL

    Adv. MR SUDHIR MOHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Copy of Bail OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: PARMAL v. State of U.P. (1067/2026) The court rejected Parmal's anticipatory bail petition in a land transaction dispute involving charges under IPC sections 406, 420, 504, and 506. Parmal had allegedly received ₹6,00,000 from Sushil Kumar for land purchase in 2014 but failed to execute the deed and subsequently transferred the property to someone else. When confronted about returning the remaining ₹50,000, he allegedly abused and threatened the complainant. The court found insufficient grounds for anticipatory bail given the circumstances, Parmal's non-cooperation with trial proceedings, and the nature of the charges, thereby dismissing the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 31-Mar-2026

    hearing

    District Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1067/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: PARMAL v. State of U.P. (1067/2026) The court rejected Parmal's anticipatory bail petition in a land transaction dispute involving charges under IPC sections 406, 420, 504, and 506. Parmal had allegedly received ₹6,00,000 from Sushil Kumar for land purchase in 2014 but failed to execute the deed and subsequently transferred the property to someone else. When confronted about returning the remaining ₹50,000, he allegedly abused and threatened the complainant. The court found insufficient grounds for anticipatory bail given the circumstances, Parmal's non-cooperation with trial proceedings, and the nature of the charges, thereby dismissing the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case