State Government vs Ravindra alias Ravi Sirthaliya — 793/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),109(1),352,351(3),61(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPMT010016702026

Filing Number

1492/2026

Filing Date

21-Feb-2026

Registration No

793/2026

Registration Date

21-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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),109(1),352,351(3),61(2)
Arms Act Section 5,25,27

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ravindra alias Ravi Sirthaliya

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the bail application of Ravindra alias Ravi Sirthalia, accused of shooting and injuring a person with an illegal firearm under IPC sections 191(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3), 61(2) and Arms Act sections 5/25/27. The court found that the FIR clearly named the applicant, medical evidence confirmed serious injuries to the victim, and the investigation was ongoing with facts still emerging, making bail unjustified at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  7. 21-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 793/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the bail application of Ravindra alias Ravi Sirthalia, accused of shooting and injuring a person with an illegal firearm under IPC sections 191(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3), 61(2) and Arms Act sections 5/25/27. The court found that the FIR clearly named the applicant, medical evidence confirmed serious injuries to the victim, and the investigation was ongoing with facts still emerging, making bail unjustified 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