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.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAL010011722026
Filing Number
904/2026
Filing Date
13-03-2026
Registration No
309/2026
Registration Date
13-03-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ
Judge
1-District And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Granted
FIR Details
FIR Number
54
Police Station
N.E.B
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SACHIN MEENA URF LAUA
Adv. AMEEN KHAN
Respondent(s)
State Advocate - APO
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts