ALIM KHAN vs State Advocate - APO — 315/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 17th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAL010011792026
Filing Number
911/2026
Filing Date
13-03-2026
Registration No
315/2026
Registration Date
13-03-2026
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
245
Police Station
VAISHALI NAGAR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ALIM KHAN
Adv. AMZAD KHAN
Respondent(s)
State Advocate - APO
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge
Disposed
Orders
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 315/2026 - ALIM KHAN v. State Advocate Court Decision: The Session Judge of Alwar rejected Alim Khan's third bail application under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. Khan is accused of operating a cyber fraud syndicate involving ₹19.02 crores in fraudulent transactions across 32 bank accounts, acting as a "mule" provider by supplying compromised bank accounts to facilitate cybercrime. Key Reasoning: The court found substantial evidence linking Khan to an organized criminal conspiracy involving multiple co-accused (Barkat Ali, Harisingh, Jahul Khan, Mukesh Meena), with records showing his direct involvement in providing mule accounts and receiving commissions. Given the serious nature of the offenses under IPC Sections 318(2), 318(4), 112(2), 61(2), and DRAT Section 66, combined with Khan's prior criminal history (four other cases pending), the court determined bail was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 315/2026 - ALIM KHAN v. State Advocate Court Decision: The Session Judge of Alwar rejected Alim Khan's third bail application under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. Khan is accused of operating a cyber fraud syndicate involving ₹19.02 crores in fraudulent transactions across 32 bank accounts, acting as a "mule" provider by supplying compromised bank accounts to facilitate cybercrime. Key Reasoning: The court found substantial evidence linking Khan to an organized criminal conspiracy involving multiple co-accused (Barkat Ali, Harisingh, Jahul Khan, Mukesh Meena), with records showing his direct involvement in providing mule accounts and receiving commissions. Given the serious nature of the offenses under IPC Sections 318(2), 318(4), 112(2), 61(2), and DRAT Section 66, combined with Khan's prior criminal history (four other cases pending), the court determined bail was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts