State Government vs Danish Kureshi — 751/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 174a. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 25th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPMT010016032026
Filing Number
1426/2026
Filing Date
19-Feb-2026
Registration No
751/2026
Registration Date
19-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge, Mathura
Judge
4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
312
Police Station
SADAR BAZAR
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government
Respondent(s)
-
1.Danish Kureshi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
SUMMARY: The Mathura Additional Sessions Court granted advance bail to Danish Qureshi in a case under IPC Section 174-A (non-appearance before court) despite the State's opposition. The court found that while the original case (Section 366 abduction charge) had concluded with final police report, the Section 174-A charge arose solely from the accused's failure to appear despite non-bailable warrants and proclamation orders. Given the accused's lack of criminal history, assurances of cooperation in trial, and completion of investigation in the primary case, bail was granted on specified conditions including court cooperation, non-tampering with witnesses, and mandatory appearance during trial proceedings, with two sureties of ₹50,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
-
19-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 751/2026
SUMMARY: The Mathura Additional Sessions Court granted advance bail to Danish Qureshi in a case under IPC Section 174-A (non-appearance before court) despite the State's opposition. The court found that while the original case (Section 366 abduction charge) had concluded with final police report, the Section 174-A charge arose solely from the accused's failure to appear despite non-bailable warrants and proclamation orders. Given the accused's lack of criminal history, assurances of cooperation in trial, and completion of investigation in the primary case, bail was granted on specified conditions including court cooperation, non-tampering with witnesses, and mandatory appearance during trial proceedings, with two sureties of ₹50,000 each. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts