STATE vs AYAZ AHMED — 460/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.
Bail Matters
CNR: DLNW010025122026
Filing Number
1350/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
460/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North-West, RHC
Judge
439-ASJ/FTC NW
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
Crime Branch -N.W.Delhi
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Respondent(s)
AYAZ AHMED
Hearing History
Judge: 439-ASJ/FTC NW
Disposed
For Bail
For Bail
For Bail
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | For Bail |
| 07-03-2026 | For Bail |
| 28-02-2026 | For Bail |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 460/2026 Summary: STATE v. AYAZ AHMED The court dismissed Ayaz Ahmed's bail application in a case involving the illegal distribution of expired chocolates. Ahmed allegedly purchased expired chocolates without proper documentation and sold them to co-accused Atul Jalan (who repackaged them with tampered labels), falsely declaring them as cattle feed and cosmetics. The court found the charges extremely serious due to public health risks, especially to children, and noted that toxic materials were used to erase expiry dates. Bail was denied pending testimony from food safety officers and given that charges remain unframed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 460/2026 Summary: STATE v. AYAZ AHMED The court dismissed Ayaz Ahmed's bail application in a case involving the illegal distribution of expired chocolates. Ahmed allegedly purchased expired chocolates without proper documentation and sold them to co-accused Atul Jalan (who repackaged them with tampered labels), falsely declaring them as cattle feed and cosmetics. The court found the charges extremely serious due to public health risks, especially to children, and noted that toxic materials were used to erase expiry dates. Bail was denied pending testimony from food safety officers and given that charges remain unframed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts