Akali and others vs Uttar Pradesh — 444/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPGD010014012026

Filing Number

1284/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

444/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Addl. District Judge-III

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

27

Police Station

TARABGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Akali and others

    Adv. Shiv Prasad Tiwari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Bail OrderView PDF

    Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Akaali and Jasseen, finding that they fraudulently created forged documents and a fake moneylender ("Mahajan") to illegally register agricultural plots (No. 331 and 338) belonging to the complainant's deceased father. The court determined that the accused persons are habitual offenders operating an organized fraud scheme, and that investigation is ongoing with serious criminal charges under BNS sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) warranting their detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge-III

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge-III

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 444/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Akaali and Jasseen, finding that they fraudulently created forged documents and a fake moneylender ("Mahajan") to illegally register agricultural plots (No. 331 and 338) belonging to the complainant's deceased father. The court determined that the accused persons are habitual offenders operating an organized fraud scheme, and that investigation is ongoing with serious criminal charges under BNS sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) warranting their detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case