Mo Rashid vs State of UP — 270/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,115(2),352,351(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPRP010005752026

Filing Number

538/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

270/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District & Session Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

14

Police Station

SWAR

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,115(2),352,351(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mo Rashid

    Adv. Sri Kaushlendra Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of document.View PDF

    Case Summary: Mo Rashid v. State of UP (270/2026) The Sessions Court at Rampur granted bail to petitioner Mo Rashid in his application challenging charges under IPC Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(2). The court found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation, noting the absence of DNA evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged child, lack of specific dates/times/locations of alleged sexual relations, and inconsistencies in the complainant's narrative, including her concealment of a prior marriage. The court approved bail on personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District & Session Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District & Session Judge

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 270/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Mo Rashid v. State of UP (270/2026) The Sessions Court at Rampur granted bail to petitioner Mo Rashid in his application challenging charges under IPC Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(2). The court found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation, noting the absence of DNA evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged child, lack of specific dates/times/locations of alleged sexual relations, and inconsistencies in the complainant's narrative, including her concealment of a prior marriage. The court approved bail on personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with 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