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
Filing Number
938/2026
Filing Date
25-Feb-2026
Registration No
338/2026
Registration Date
25-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 04-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
56
Police Station
PURANPUR
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of UP
Adv. D.G.C. Criminal
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kamil urf Muradi Advocate - NISHANT PANDEY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Copy of Bail OrderView PDF
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.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit
-
26-Feb-2026
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No. 1. Pilibhit
-
25-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 338/2026
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.
Explore other courts