Omprakash urph patwari vs State — 182/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2),115(2),352,351(3),87. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPSR010004862026

Filing Number

460/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

182/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

85

Police Station

Bhinga

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2),115(2),352,351(3),87

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Omprakash urph patwari

    Adv. Dinesh Kumar Yadav

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 182/2026 Court Decision: The Session Judge of Shravasti granted bail to Omprakash (age 23) with conditions, finding insufficient evidence of serious misconduct. The court noted the complainant's statement under Section 183 CrPC explicitly denied the allegations of abduction and assault. Key Reasoning: The court observed that the FIR was registered two days after the alleged incident without clear evidence, the petitioner had no prior criminal history, and the medical examination confirmed the complainant's age as 18 years. The petitioner was ordered to appear regularly before court and furnish two sureties of ₹50,000 each with an undertaking. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 182/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 182/2026 Court Decision: The Session Judge of Shravasti granted bail to Omprakash (age 23) with conditions, finding insufficient evidence of serious misconduct. The court noted the complainant's statement under Section 183 CrPC explicitly denied the allegations of abduction and assault. Key Reasoning: The court observed that the FIR was registered two days after the alleged incident without clear evidence, the petitioner had no prior criminal history, and the medical examination confirmed the complainant's age as 18 years. The petitioner was ordered to appear regularly before court and furnish two sureties of ₹50,000 each with an undertaking. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case