Mohd. Jaid vs State of U.P. — 547/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(20,191(3),190,352,103(1),61(2)a. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPAD010013402026

Filing Number

1137/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

547/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

3-Special Judge Ec Act

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

123

Police Station

BAHARIA

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(20,191(3),190,352,103(1),61(2)a

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mohd. Jaid

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 547/2026 (Mohd. Jaid v. State of U.P.) The court rejected Mohd. Jaid's anticipatory bail petition in connection with a fatal shooting incident (FIR 123/2024) where one person was killed and another injured. Although the original complainant later filed an affidavit claiming Jaid was falsely implicated and requesting his name be deleted from the case, the court found the charges serious and noted Jaid's criminal history, sufficient witness testimony supporting prosecution claims, and that other co-accused had already been denied bail—thus providing insufficient grounds for interim bail during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Special Judge Ec Act

  4. 28-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge Ec Act

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge Ec Act

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge Ec Act

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 547/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 547/2026 (Mohd. Jaid v. State of U.P.) The court rejected Mohd. Jaid's anticipatory bail petition in connection with a fatal shooting incident (FIR 123/2024) where one person was killed and another injured. Although the original complainant later filed an affidavit claiming Jaid was falsely implicated and requesting his name be deleted from the case, the court found the charges serious and noted Jaid's criminal history, sufficient witness testimony supporting prosecution claims, and that other co-accused had already been denied bail—thus providing insufficient grounds for interim bail during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case