Taukid Khan vs State Government — 1446/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 498A,323,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 16th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPGZ010032312026
Filing Number
3030/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
1446/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
5-A.D.J. Court No. 4
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
Last updated 22-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
461
Police Station
GHAZIABAD KOTWALI
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Taukid Khan
Adv. Umardin.
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Government
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
bail orderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad granted anticipatory bail to Tauqeed Khan in Criminal Case No. 461/2023 (charges under IPC Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and the Dowry Prohibition Act and Muslim Women's Marriage Rights Protection Act, 2019). The court found that since the case involves matrimonial and family dispute between the applicant and the complainant, and considering the Supreme Court's precedent in *Sidharth vs. State of UP* (2022), the applicant merited interim bail protection during trial. Bail was granted on personal recognizance of ₹25,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including regular court appearance and not tampering with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
A.D.J. Court No. 4
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1446/2026
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad granted anticipatory bail to Tauqeed Khan in Criminal Case No. 461/2023 (charges under IPC Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and the Dowry Prohibition Act and Muslim Women's Marriage Rights Protection Act, 2019). The court found that since the case involves matrimonial and family dispute between the applicant and the complainant, and considering the Supreme Court's precedent in *Sidharth vs. State of UP* (2022), the applicant merited interim bail protection during trial. Bail was granted on personal recognizance of ₹25,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including regular court appearance and not tampering with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts