STATE vs SALMAN HAIDER @ MAAN — 166/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307,323,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: DLNE010023262024
e-Filing Number
16-04-2024
Filing Number
1230/2024
Filing Date
16-04-2024
Registration No
166/2024
Registration Date
08-08-2024
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD
Judge
413-Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
103
Police Station
Dayal Pur
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Respondent(s)
SALMAN HAIDER @ MAAN
Hearing History
Judge: 413-Principal District and Sessions Judge - North-East District
Disposed
Judgement
Final Arguments
Statement of Accused
Statement of Accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 14-03-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Statement of Accused |
| 07-02-2026 | Statement of Accused |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Salman Haider @ Maan (SC No. 166/2024) The court acquitted accused Salman Haider of charges under IPC Sections 307/323/34 (attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt) for a January 2024 stabbing incident in Delhi. The prosecution failed to establish the accused's identity or involvement despite examining seven witnesses—the two key eyewitnesses (injured Salman and witness Tahir) could not identify the accused, the primary victim (Monu) could not be produced, and only corroborating police evidence remained insufficient. The court held that without proven identity and involvement, the framed charges could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Salman Haider @ Maan (SC No. 166/2024) The court acquitted accused Salman Haider of charges under IPC Sections 307/323/34 (attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt) for a January 2024 stabbing incident in Delhi. The prosecution failed to establish the accused's identity or involvement despite examining seven witnesses—the two key eyewitnesses (injured Salman and witness Tahir) could not identify the accused, the primary victim (Monu) could not be produced, and only corroborating police evidence remained insufficient. The court held that without proven identity and involvement, the framed charges could not be sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts