JAFAR ALI URF MO SAIFI vs State Government — 566/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317(2),317(4). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPRB010013862026

Filing Number

1301/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

566/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Session Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

30

Police Station

GADAGANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 317(2),317(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAFAR ALI URF MO SAIFI

    Adv. ANIL KUMAR YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The Sessions Court at Raebareli granted bail to Jafar Ali (age 25) in a theft case under Sections 317(2) and 317(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023. The court found that while the accused was arrested based on a co-accused's statement and stolen electrical items were allegedly recovered from his scrap business premises, there was no independent witness to the recovery, no clear date or time of the alleged theft in the FIR, and insufficient corroborating evidence. The court imposed standard bail conditions including personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, and mandatory court attendance at key trial stages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Session Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Session Judge

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 566/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Sessions Court at Raebareli granted bail to Jafar Ali (age 25) in a theft case under Sections 317(2) and 317(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023. The court found that while the accused was arrested based on a co-accused's statement and stolen electrical items were allegedly recovered from his scrap business premises, there was no independent witness to the recovery, no clear date or time of the alleged theft in the FIR, and insufficient corroborating evidence. The court imposed standard bail conditions including personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, and mandatory court attendance at key trial stages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case