SACHIN MEENA URF LAUA vs State Advocate - APO — 309/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJAL010011722026

Filing Number

904/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

309/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Granted

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

54

Police Station

N.E.B

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SACHIN MEENA URF LAUA

    Adv. AMEEN KHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Advocate - APO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 309/2026 - Sachin Meena v. State Advocate The Session Court at Alwar granted bail to 19-year-old Sachin Meena (accused of theft under IPC Sections 305(a) and 331(4) involving jewelry stolen from a shop) on condition of furnishing a personal recognizance bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each. The court found no prior criminal record against the petitioner, noted that stolen goods had been recovered, and held that bail was justified considering the case's preliminary investigation stage and absence of compelling reasons for continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Sessions Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 309/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 309/2026 - Sachin Meena v. State Advocate The Session Court at Alwar granted bail to 19-year-old Sachin Meena (accused of theft under IPC Sections 305(a) and 331(4) involving jewelry stolen from a shop) on condition of furnishing a personal recognizance bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each. The court found no prior criminal record against the petitioner, noted that stolen goods had been recovered, and held that bail was justified considering the case's preliminary investigation stage and absence of compelling reasons for continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case