Faiyaz Ahmad vs State — 311/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 61(2),191(2),191(3),109(1),352,351(3),131,115(2),190. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 16th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPKJ010006342026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

583/2026

Filing Date

25-02-2026

Registration No

311/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

666

Police Station

CHHIBRAMAU

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 61(2),191(2),191(3),109(1),352,351(3),131,115(2),190
C.L.A. (Criminal Law Amendment Act) Section 7

Petitioner(s)

Faiyaz Ahmad

Adv. Amit Mishra

Respondent(s)

State

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADJ I

16-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Hearing

06-03-2026

Hearing

25-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Bail petition is allowed

Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Kannauj granted anticipatory bail to Faiyaz Ahmad in Criminal Case No. 666/2025 under charges including criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation with weapon (IPC Sections 109, 191, 351, 352, 131, 190, 115 BNS and CLA Act Section 7). The court found credible evidence (CCTV footage and medical records) supporting the applicant's claim that he was receiving dental treatment 40 km away in Farrukhabad at the time of the alleged incident (6:20 PM on 29.11.2025), making his presence at the crime scene physically impossible. The court approved the bail application with conditions including a personal bond of ₹2 lakh and restrictions on leaving the country without permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Kannauj granted anticipatory bail to Faiyaz Ahmad in Criminal Case No. 666/2025 under charges including criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation with weapon (IPC Sections 109, 191, 351, 352, 131, 190, 115 BNS and CLA Act Section 7). The court found credible evidence (CCTV footage and medical records) supporting the applicant's claim that he was receiving dental treatment 40 km away in Farrukhabad at the time of the alleged incident (6:20 PM on 29.11.2025), making his presence at the crime scene physically impossible. The court approved the bail application with conditions including a personal bond of ₹2 lakh and restrictions on leaving the country without permission. 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