Fazal urf Bhola vs State of U.P. — 612/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),191(3),190,333,109,351(3),324(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 07th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPBR010024442026
Filing Number
2359/2026
Filing Date
07-Feb-2026
Registration No
612/2026
Registration Date
07-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 03-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1103
Police Station
IZAT NAGAR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Fazal urf Bhola
Adv. DGC
-
2.Rizwan
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of U.P.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
Copy of orderView PDF
Summary The Bareilly Sessions Court rejected the bail petition of accused Faisal Urf Bhola and Rijwan under Case No. 1103/2025 on March 7, 2026. The court found sufficient grounds to believe the applicants' involvement in a violent attack on November 16, 2025, where they allegedly incited a mob to assault three victims (Hasim Khan, Rehan, and Javed Khan) with weapons, causing serious injuries. The court determined that the bail application lacked credible justification and was based on contradictory statements, making continued detention necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 612/2026
Summary The Bareilly Sessions Court rejected the bail petition of accused Faisal Urf Bhola and Rijwan under Case No. 1103/2025 on March 7, 2026. The court found sufficient grounds to believe the applicants' involvement in a violent attack on November 16, 2025, where they allegedly incited a mob to assault three victims (Hasim Khan, Rehan, and Javed Khan) with weapons, causing serious injuries. The court determined that the bail application lacked credible justification and was based on contradictory statements, making continued detention necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts