State of UP vs Kamil urf Muradi Advocate - NISHANT PANDEY — 338/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPPB010009982026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

938/2026

Filing Date

25-02-2026

Registration No

338/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

56

Police Station

PURANPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109
Indian Arms Act Section 3/25/27

Petitioner(s)

State of UP

Adv. D.G.C. Criminal

Respondent(s)

Kamil urf Muradi Advocate - NISHANT PANDEY

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit

09-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Hearing

05-03-2026

Hearing

26-02-2026

Hearing

25-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Copy of Bail Order

The court approved bail for accused Kamil Urf Muradi under sections 109 IPC and 3/25/27 Arms Act, setting bail at Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, finding that the FIR allegations lacked credible independent witness testimony and that no police personnel were injured in the alleged incident. The court determined that while serious charges were leveled, the case merits bail consideration given the evidentiary gaps and absence of corroborating evidence of the claimed gunfire exchange. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court approved bail for accused Kamil Urf Muradi under sections 109 IPC and 3/25/27 Arms Act, setting bail at Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, finding that the FIR allegations lacked credible independent witness testimony and that no police personnel were injured in the alleged incident. The court determined that while serious charges were leveled, the case merits bail consideration given the evidentiary gaps and absence of corroborating evidence of the claimed gunfire exchange. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case