Tarif vs State Government — 817/2026

Case under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Section 2,3. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010016142026

Filing Number

1437/2026

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

817/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

6-Addl. District Judge Court No. 5

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

73

Police Station

VRINDAVAN

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Section 2,3

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Tarif

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Special Judge (Gangster Act) in Mathura rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tarif (accused of vehicle theft under the UP Gangster Act, 2020). The court found sufficient grounds to deny bail, as the accused faced charges of stealing vehicles in conspiracy with co-accused gang members and the allegations appeared credible. The court held that inadequate prima facie evidence existed to grant anticipatory bail, thereby dismissing the application dated March 16, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 5

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge Court No. 5

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 817/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Special Judge (Gangster Act) in Mathura rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tarif (accused of vehicle theft under the UP Gangster Act, 2020). The court found sufficient grounds to deny bail, as the accused faced charges of stealing vehicles in conspiracy with co-accused gang members and the allegations appeared credible. The court held that inadequate prima facie evidence existed to grant anticipatory bail, thereby dismissing the application dated March 16, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case