PIPYALI URF JAFRU vs State Advocate - APO — 308/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJAL010011672026

Filing Number

902/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

308/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

154

Police Station

AKBARPUR

Year

2013

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PIPYALI URF JAFRU

    Adv. AMZAD KHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Advocate - APO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 308/2026 Court Decision: The Session Court at Alwar rejected Pipyali Urf Jafru's second bail petition under Section 483 CrPC on 17.03.2026. The court found that the petitioner, an habitual offender with four prior criminal cases, was charged with hunting a male sambhar deer in the Chilhavala enclave of Tiger Reserve without forest officer permission, in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Given the serious nature of the offense, the petitioner's criminal history, and no material change in case circumstances since the first bail denial, the court held that granting bail would not be justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Sessions Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 308/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 308/2026 Court Decision: The Session Court at Alwar rejected Pipyali Urf Jafru's second bail petition under Section 483 CrPC on 17.03.2026. The court found that the petitioner, an habitual offender with four prior criminal cases, was charged with hunting a male sambhar deer in the Chilhavala enclave of Tiger Reserve without forest officer permission, in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Given the serious nature of the offense, the petitioner's criminal history, and no material change in case circumstances since the first bail denial, the court held that granting bail would not be justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case