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

Case disposed

Filing Number

3030/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

1446/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

5-A.D.J. Court No. 4

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

FIR Details

FIR Number

461

Police Station

GHAZIABAD KOTWALI

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 498A,323,504,506
Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3/4
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

Taukid Khan

Adv. Umardin.

Respondent(s)

State Government

Hearing History

Judge: 5-A.D.J. Court No. 4

16-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Hearing

12-03-2026

Hearing

11-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
bail order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case