State of UP vs Akram Advocate - NISHANT PANDEY — 337/2026

Case under Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 Section 3/5/8. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPPB010010012026

Filing Number

940/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

337/2026

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

51

Police Station

PURANPUR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 Section 3/5/8

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of UP

    Adv. D.G.C. Criminal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Akram Advocate - NISHANT PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of Bail OrderView PDF

    The court granted bail to the accused Akram (charged under Section 5/8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) on the grounds that no physical evidence or recovery was made from him, and his name appeared in the FIR only based on a police custody confession, which is inadmissible as evidence. The bail was approved with a bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

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

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing

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

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

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

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 337/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted bail to the accused Akram (charged under Section 5/8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) on the grounds that no physical evidence or recovery was made from him, and his name appeared in the FIR only based on a police custody confession, which is inadmissible as evidence. The bail was approved with a bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case