Suraj Pandey vs state — 695/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,323,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 18th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPST010023112026
Filing Number
2126/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
695/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-ADJ 1
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1387
Police Station
Kotwali Kadipur
Year
2008
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suraj Pandey
Adv. ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY
Respondent(s)
state
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADJ 1
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 695/2026 - Suraj Pandey v. State Decision: The court rejected Suraj Pandey's interim bail application. The petitioner was accused of robbery, criminal intimidation, and assault (IPC sections 394, 323, 504, 506) in an incident on June 5, 2008, where he allegedly robbed ₹10,000 from the complainant and assaulted him. Court's Reasoning: While the court acknowledged Supreme Court precedent requiring prima facie evidence against an accused before bail denial, it found sufficient initial evidence in the FIR and witness statements establishing the petitioner's involvement in the offense. The court determined that adequate grounds existed to proceed with the case and that bail rejection did not violate personal liberty protections in cases with demonstrable prima facie evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 695/2026 - Suraj Pandey v. State Decision: The court rejected Suraj Pandey's interim bail application. The petitioner was accused of robbery, criminal intimidation, and assault (IPC sections 394, 323, 504, 506) in an incident on June 5, 2008, where he allegedly robbed ₹10,000 from the complainant and assaulted him. Court's Reasoning: While the court acknowledged Supreme Court precedent requiring prima facie evidence against an accused before bail denial, it found sufficient initial evidence in the FIR and witness statements establishing the petitioner's involvement in the offense. The court determined that adequate grounds existed to proceed with the case and that bail rejection did not violate personal liberty protections in cases with demonstrable prima facie evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts