STATE vs BABU ASLAM — 467/2026

Case under Indian Arms Act 1959 Section 25. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.

Bail Matters

CNR: DLNT010027922026

Case disposed

Filing Number

836/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

467/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North, RHC

Judge

435-ASJ/Spl.FTC North

Decision Date

19th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

572

Police Station

Model Town

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Indian Arms Act 1959 Section 25

Petitioner(s)

STATE

Respondent(s)

BABU ASLAM

Hearing History

Judge: 435-ASJ/Spl.FTC North

19-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

For Bail

12-03-2026

For Bail

11-03-2026

For Bail

Final Orders / Judgements

19-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER

Case 467/2026 Summary: State vs. Babu Aslam The court granted regular bail to 22-year-old Babu Aslam, accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, after he had been in judicial custody since November 2025. The court found that since the chargesheet had been filed, investigation was complete, co-accused persons with similar roles were already on bail, and the trial would take substantial time, there was no fruitful purpose in continued detention. Bail was granted on Rs. 40,000 personal bond with surety, subject to conditions including regular court appearance, non-commission of similar offences, maintaining mobile contact with investigating officer, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case 467/2026 Summary: State vs. Babu Aslam The court granted regular bail to 22-year-old Babu Aslam, accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, after he had been in judicial custody since November 2025. The court found that since the chargesheet had been filed, investigation was complete, co-accused persons with similar roles were already on bail, and the trial would take substantial time, there was no fruitful purpose in continued detention. Bail was granted on Rs. 40,000 personal bond with surety, subject to conditions including regular court appearance, non-commission of similar offences, maintaining mobile contact with investigating officer, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, North, RHC All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case