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.

Bail Application

CNR: RJAL010011672026

Case disposed

Filing Number

902/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

308/2026

Registration Date

12-03-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

FIR Details

FIR Number

154

Police Station

AKBARPUR

Year

2013

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

PIPYALI URF JAFRU

Adv. AMZAD KHAN

Respondent(s)

State Advocate - APO

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge

17-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Orders

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Order

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case