MOHAMMAD SHAKIR vs State Advocate - APO — 312/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 16th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAL010011762026
Filing Number
908/2026
Filing Date
13-03-2026
Registration No
312/2026
Registration Date
13-03-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ
Judge
1-District And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Granted
FIR Details
FIR Number
109
Police Station
KOTWALI ALWAR
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MOHAMMAD SHAKIR
Adv. ABHIMANU SINGH CHOUHAN
Respondent(s)
State Advocate - APO
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge
Disposed
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 312/2026 - Mohammad Shakir v. State Advocate The Session Court in Alwar granted bail to petitioner Mohammad Shakir in a second bail application under CrPC Section 439. Shakir was accused of operating a fraudulent trading app called "ARC Trade" that duped investors into depositing money with promises of investment returns, charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B and IT Act Section 66. The court found that Shakir had refunded the complainant ₹96,500, no prior criminal record existed against him, investigation was ongoing, and co-accused had already been granted bail in similar circumstances. Bail was granted on furnishing a ₹1 lakh personal bond and two sureties of ₹50,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 312/2026 - Mohammad Shakir v. State Advocate The Session Court in Alwar granted bail to petitioner Mohammad Shakir in a second bail application under CrPC Section 439. Shakir was accused of operating a fraudulent trading app called "ARC Trade" that duped investors into depositing money with promises of investment returns, charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B and IT Act Section 66. The court found that Shakir had refunded the complainant ₹96,500, no prior criminal record existed against him, investigation was ongoing, and co-accused had already been granted bail in similar circumstances. Bail was granted on furnishing a ₹1 lakh personal bond and two sureties of ₹50,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts