MOHD YUNUS vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A. — NABAIL/1729/2026

Disposed: -- on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC010991152026

Filing Number

NABAIL/

Filing Date

13-Feb-2026

Registration No

NABAIL/1729/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Judge

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Coram

Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

ABAIL MINOR ( 64 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 30-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD YUNUS

    Adv. ATUL PANDEY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.ADHOC INS. SRI SATYENDRA KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Rajiv Lochan ShuklaView PDF

    Case Summary: NABAIL 1729/2026 The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to Mohd Yunus in a case under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court found that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail and that the applicant was not a previous convict, rendering the grounds for bail appropriate. The bail was granted subject to conditions including furnishing personal bond and sureties, availability for police interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction from leaving India without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    —

    Rajiv Lochan Shukla

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    —

    Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar (Judicial)

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. NABAIL/1729/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: NABAIL 1729/2026 The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to Mohd Yunus in a case under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court found that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail and that the applicant was not a previous convict, rendering the grounds for bail appropriate. The bail was granted subject to conditions including furnishing personal bond and sureties, availability for police interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction from leaving India without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case