STATE vs ANKRISH MAHAJAN — 414/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 79,351. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Misc Crl - MISC. CASES

CNR: DLSE010029522026

Filing Number

1465/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

414/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket

Judge

3-Additional Sessions Judge Ftc -02

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

358

Police Station

New Friends Colony

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 79,351

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ANKRISH MAHAJAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Ankrish Mahajan (414/2026) The court allowed Ankrish Mahajan's application to modify his bail conditions, holding that courts cannot impose restrictive conditions beyond security and surety for bailable offences. The trial court's requirement that the 22-year-old accused seek prior permission to travel abroad was deemed unlawful under Section 478 BNSS, as the accused faced only bailable charges (BNS §79, 351(2)) and such travel restrictions effectively constructively denied bail to someone employed in Dubai. The Additional Sessions Judge revoked the condition, allowing the applicant unrestricted movement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Sessions Judge Ftc -02

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 414/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Ankrish Mahajan (414/2026) The court allowed Ankrish Mahajan's application to modify his bail conditions, holding that courts cannot impose restrictive conditions beyond security and surety for bailable offences. The trial court's requirement that the 22-year-old accused seek prior permission to travel abroad was deemed unlawful under Section 478 BNSS, as the accused faced only bailable charges (BNS §79, 351(2)) and such travel restrictions effectively constructively denied bail to someone employed in Dubai. The Additional Sessions Judge revoked the condition, allowing the applicant unrestricted movement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case