State Government vs Sonu saini — 463/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),109(1),352,351(3),61(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 24th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPMT010011032026
Filing Number
993/2026
Filing Date
02-Feb-2026
Registration No
463/2026
Registration Date
02-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge, Mathura
Judge
1-District & Session Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
791
Police Station
KOSI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sonu saini
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary: The Sessions Court in Mathura rejected the bail application of Sonu Saini in a case involving charges under IPC sections 191(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3), and 61(2) related to a shooting incident. While the applicant claimed innocence and alleged false implication due to local rivalry, the court found that he was explicitly named in the FIR as accompanying the co-accused who fired the shot, causing serious injuries to the victim, and no justified reason for false implication was established. The court denied bail, holding that considering all facts and circumstances, there was no justified basis to grant bail before trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
District & Session Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
12-Feb-2026
Hearing
District & Session Judge
-
02-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 463/2026
Summary: The Sessions Court in Mathura rejected the bail application of Sonu Saini in a case involving charges under IPC sections 191(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3), and 61(2) related to a shooting incident. While the applicant claimed innocence and alleged false implication due to local rivalry, the court found that he was explicitly named in the FIR as accompanying the co-accused who fired the shot, causing serious injuries to the victim, and no justified reason for false implication was established. The court denied bail, holding that considering all facts and circumstances, there was no justified basis to grant bail before trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts