UP State vs PAPPU URF MAHESH PAHADE Advocate - Ch. Anil Kumar Singh — 992/2018

Case under Arms Act Section 3,25. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.

Session Trial(Old)

CNR: UPMO010122082018

Case disposed

Filing Number

2004794/2018

Filing Date

13-12-2018

Registration No

992/2018

Registration Date

13-12-2018

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

5-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 3 Moradabad

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

ARMS ACT Section 3,25

Petitioner(s)

UP State

Adv. NO

Respondent(s)

PAPPU URF MAHESH PAHADE Advocate - Ch. Anil Kumar Singh

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 3 Moradabad

11-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Statement U/S 313

09-03-2026

Statement U/S 313

06-03-2026

Statement U/S 313

27-02-2026

Statement U/S 313

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Judgement

Summary The Moradabad Sessions Court acquitted all accused in four consolidated cases on March 11, 2026. The court found the prosecution failed to prove murder charges (Section 302/34, 120B IPC) against Pappu alias Mahesh Pahari, Amit Kumar, Vikas Kumar, and Vimal Kumar. The court also acquitted accused Mahesh of illegal firearms charges (Section 3/25 Arms Act) and attempted murder (Section 307 IPC). The judge ruled that credible eye-witnesses were absent, key prosecution witnesses contradicted each other or turned hostile, and the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Moradabad Sessions Court acquitted all accused in four consolidated cases on March 11, 2026. The court found the prosecution failed to prove murder charges (Section 302/34, 120B IPC) against Pappu alias Mahesh Pahari, Amit Kumar, Vikas Kumar, and Vimal Kumar. The court also acquitted accused Mahesh of illegal firearms charges (Section 3/25 Arms Act) and attempted murder (Section 307 IPC). The judge ruled that credible eye-witnesses were absent, key prosecution witnesses contradicted each other or turned hostile, and the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 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