STATE vs AYAZ AHMED — 460/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Matters

CNR: DLNW010025122026

Filing Number

1350/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

460/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North-West, RHC

Judge

439-Asj/Ftc Nw

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11

Police Station

Crime Branch -N.W.Delhi

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AYAZ AHMED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Asj/Ftc Nw

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    For Bail

    Asj/Ftc Nw

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    For Bail

    Asj/Ftc Nw

  8. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 460/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case