SULEMAN S/O NIZAMUDDIN vs UP State — 861/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 111(2)b,308(5),317(2),115(2),351(3). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMO010031132026

Filing Number

2830/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

861/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 10-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

27

Police Station

MOGHALPURA

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 111(2)b,308(5),317(2),115(2),351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SULEMAN S/O NIZAMUDDIN

    Adv. VIMAL KUMAR SINGH

  2. 2.SMT ILMA W/O SULEMAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UP State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 861/2026 Decision: The court REJECTED the bail petition of Suleman and Smt Ilma in Criminal Case No. 27/2026 under IPC Sections 111(2)B, 308(5), 317(2), 115(2), and 351(3). The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of organized criminal conduct involving extortion of ₹85,000 through threats, intimidation, and blackmail using fabricated intimate videos. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioners, along with co-accused, allegedly entrapped the victim through deception, created obscene videos, and threatened to register false rape cases and circulate the videos unless money was paid. Despite petitioners' claims of innocence, the FIR statement, recovered cash, and circumstantial evidence supported the prosecution's case, warranting bail rejection at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 861/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 861/2026 Decision: The court REJECTED the bail petition of Suleman and Smt Ilma in Criminal Case No. 27/2026 under IPC Sections 111(2)B, 308(5), 317(2), 115(2), and 351(3). The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of organized criminal conduct involving extortion of ₹85,000 through threats, intimidation, and blackmail using fabricated intimate videos. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioners, along with co-accused, allegedly entrapped the victim through deception, created obscene videos, and threatened to register false rape cases and circulate the videos unless money was paid. Despite petitioners' claims of innocence, the FIR statement, recovered cash, and circumstantial evidence supported the prosecution's case, warranting bail rejection at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case