MOHAMMAD SHAKIR vs State Advocate - APO — 312/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJAL010011762026

Filing Number

908/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

312/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Granted

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

109

Police Station

KOTWALI ALWAR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHAMMAD SHAKIR

    Adv. ABHIMANU SINGH CHOUHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Advocate - APO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Sessions Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 312/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case