AARISH ZAHEER vs State Gov. — 1014/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023922026

Filing Number

2225/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1014/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

5-ADJ/ Special Judge (Ec Act)

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

34

Police Station

Tiwaripur

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),317(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AARISH ZAHEER

    Adv. VINOD KUMAR TRIPTHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Gov.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Gorakhpur granted bail to Arish Jahi in a case involving charges under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to illegal tampering with electricity transformers. The court found that while the accusation of theft of electrical equipment appeared prima facie, the applicant had no criminal history, all investigating officers were neutral, and no independent witness existed to establish the charges. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions restricting the applicant's movement and requiring court appearance during trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ/ Special Judge (Ec Act)

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ/ Special Judge (Ec Act)

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1014/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Gorakhpur granted bail to Arish Jahi in a case involving charges under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to illegal tampering with electricity transformers. The court found that while the accusation of theft of electrical equipment appeared prima facie, the applicant had no criminal history, all investigating officers were neutral, and no independent witness existed to establish the charges. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions restricting the applicant's movement and requiring court appearance during trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case