SUFIYAN AKHTAR vs STATE OF UP — 977/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),317(4),317(5),3(5). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023022026

Filing Number

2143/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

977/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 07-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

170

Police Station

G.R.P. (Gorakhpur)

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2),317(4),317(5),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUFIYAN AKHTAR

    Adv. HABIB JAFAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Court, Gorakhpur granted bail to Sufiyan Akhtar in a mobile theft case (FIR under IPC sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5)). The court found sufficient grounds for bail despite the prior criminal history and alleged recovery of stolen mobiles, noting that bail decisions cannot be based solely on past criminal records and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The applicant was released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, conditional upon cooperating with trial proceedings and maintaining regular court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Additional District & Session Judge CNo. 4

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 977/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Court, Gorakhpur granted bail to Sufiyan Akhtar in a mobile theft case (FIR under IPC sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5)). The court found sufficient grounds for bail despite the prior criminal history and alleged recovery of stolen mobiles, noting that bail decisions cannot be based solely on past criminal records and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The applicant was released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, conditional upon cooperating with trial proceedings and maintaining regular court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case