ABDUL KALAM vs State Gov. — 1016/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 419,420,467,468,471,504,506,120b. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application.

CNR: UPGK010023992026

Filing Number

2231/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1016/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

53-ADJ/Spcl Judge POCSO Cn-2

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

517

Police Station

GIDA

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 419,420,467,468,471,504,506,120b

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABDUL KALAM

    Adv. VINOD KUMAR TRIPTHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Gov.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The court rejected Abdul Kalam's bail application in a case involving alleged forgery, cheating, and document fraud (IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506). The FIR was filed based on claims that the accused conspired with others to create fake settlement documents with forged signatures of deceased persons to illegally transfer ancestral land belonging to the complainant Rizwan Ahmad. The court found the allegations serious in nature and determined that sufficient grounds for bail did not exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ/Spcl Judge POCSO Cn-2

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    ADJ/Spcl Judge POCSO Cn-2

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1016/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected Abdul Kalam's bail application in a case involving alleged forgery, cheating, and document fraud (IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506). The FIR was filed based on claims that the accused conspired with others to create fake settlement documents with forged signatures of deceased persons to illegally transfer ancestral land belonging to the complainant Rizwan Ahmad. The court found the allegations serious in nature and determined that sufficient grounds for bail did not exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case