Waseem Quraishi vs State of U.P. — 74/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Revision

CNR: UPBR010033302026

Filing Number

3205/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

74/2026

Registration Date

21-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

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Waseem Quraishi

    Adv. DGC

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentsView PDF

    Summary The Bareilly Sessions Court rejected the criminal revision filed by Waseem Qureshi challenging a magistrate's order fixing his surety bond at Rs. 80,000. The court held that while the accused's delay in arranging sureties was attributable to his own conduct (applying 2.5 months after bail was granted), the magistrate had discretion to fix the surety amount based on the offense nature and the accused's financial capacity. The court directed the trial court and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to assess the accused's socio-economic status and consider reducing the surety amount or granting interim bail in compliance with established bail policy guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Order/Disposal

    District Judge

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 74/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bareilly Sessions Court rejected the criminal revision filed by Waseem Qureshi challenging a magistrate's order fixing his surety bond at Rs. 80,000. The court held that while the accused's delay in arranging sureties was attributable to his own conduct (applying 2.5 months after bail was granted), the magistrate had discretion to fix the surety amount based on the offense nature and the accused's financial capacity. The court directed the trial court and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to assess the accused's socio-economic status and consider reducing the surety amount or granting interim bail in compliance with established bail policy guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case