radhyeshyam vishwakarma urf chunn vs State — 143/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,126(2),351(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 10th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPSR010004062026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
381/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
143/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
6-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Exclusive POCSO Act)
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
46
Police Station
Bhinga
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
radhyeshyam vishwakarma urf chunn
Adv. Alok Singh
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Exclusive POCSO Act)
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 26-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected the bail application of Radheyshyam Vishwakarma (alias Chunn) in a case involving charges under IPC sections 74, 126(2), 351(2) and POCSO Act sections 9(m)/10 for allegedly molesting an 11-year-old girl. The court found credible evidence from the victim's consistent statements and corroborating eyewitnesses that the accused forcibly grabbed the child while returning from school, dragged her into a field, and sexually harassed her, constituting a serious crime against society that warrants custody rather than bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the bail application of Radheyshyam Vishwakarma (alias Chunn) in a case involving charges under IPC sections 74, 126(2), 351(2) and POCSO Act sections 9(m)/10 for allegedly molesting an 11-year-old girl. The court found credible evidence from the victim's consistent statements and corroborating eyewitnesses that the accused forcibly grabbed the child while returning from school, dragged her into a field, and sexually harassed her, constituting a serious crime against society that warrants custody rather than bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts