SAIF ALI URF SAIF vs State Government of Uttar Pradesh — 491/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,352,351(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPKU010011152026

Filing Number

1062/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

491/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

26

Police Station

VISHUNPURA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,352,351(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAIF ALI URF SAIF

    Adv. SHAMS TABAREJ WARSI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government of Uttar Pradesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Sessions Court, Kushinagar granted advance bail to Saif Ali (age 18) accused under BNS Sections 69, 352, and 351(2) for alleged consensual physical relations with a complainant under the pretext of marriage. The court found that both parties were adults and consented to the relationship, the FIR lacked specificity on date/time, and the accused's birthdate (02-10-2007) showed the complainant was older. Bail was granted with conditions including personal appearance in court, non-interference with witnesses, a personal bond of ₹1,00,000, and two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 491/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Court, Kushinagar granted advance bail to Saif Ali (age 18) accused under BNS Sections 69, 352, and 351(2) for alleged consensual physical relations with a complainant under the pretext of marriage. The court found that both parties were adults and consented to the relationship, the FIR lacked specificity on date/time, and the accused's birthdate (02-10-2007) showed the complainant was older. Bail was granted with conditions including personal appearance in court, non-interference with witnesses, a personal bond of ₹1,00,000, and two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case