SHAH MOHMMAD vs U.P State — 170/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 25th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPAN010006692026
Filing Number
625/2026
Filing Date
09-Feb-2026
Registration No
170/2026
Registration Date
09-Feb-2026
Court
DIstrict and Sessions Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 17-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
395
Police Station
TANDA
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAH MOHMMAD
Adv. Narsingh Narayan Singh
Respondent(s)
-
1.U.P State
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Shah Mohammad under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation (IPC sections 316(2), 336(3), 340(2)). The applicant was accused of taking ₹2,00,000 from the complainant's wife under false pretenses to send her husband abroad, obtaining a fraudulent visa that was later found forged at the airport, causing significant financial and personal loss. The court found sufficient grounds for the serious nature of the offense and the possibility of tampering with the investigation, making bail relief unjustifiable at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 170/2026
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Shah Mohammad under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation (IPC sections 316(2), 336(3), 340(2)). The applicant was accused of taking ₹2,00,000 from the complainant's wife under false pretenses to send her husband abroad, obtaining a fraudulent visa that was later found forged at the airport, causing significant financial and personal loss. The court found sufficient grounds for the serious nature of the offense and the possibility of tampering with the investigation, making bail relief unjustifiable at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts