JHUNNU MIR vs State Gov. — 1007/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305C,317(2),317(4). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023882026

Filing Number

2221/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1007/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

228

Police Station

G.R.P. (Gorakhpur)

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305C,317(2),317(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JHUNNU MIR

    Adv. DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Gov.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Sessions Court, Gorakhpur granted bail to the accused Jhunnu Mir in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 305(C), 317(2), and 317(4) for an alleged phone scam and theft. The court found that the prosecution's case lacked independent credible witnesses, the recovered mobile phones had no direct connection to the accused, and the FIR was based solely on police statements. Bail was approved on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including cooperation in investigation and appearance before investigating officers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1007/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Court, Gorakhpur granted bail to the accused Jhunnu Mir in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 305(C), 317(2), and 317(4) for an alleged phone scam and theft. The court found that the prosecution's case lacked independent credible witnesses, the recovered mobile phones had no direct connection to the accused, and the FIR was based solely on police statements. Bail was approved on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including cooperation in investigation and appearance before investigating officers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case