Mustafa vs State of UP — 337/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3),340(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPRP010015932026

Filing Number

1541/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

337/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

49

Police Station

CIVIL LINES

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3),340(2)
Information Technology Act Section 66C,66D

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mustafa

    Adv. Sri Kaushlendra Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of UP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The court rejected Mustafa's bail petition in a case involving online fraud and cybercrime charges under Indian Penal Code sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and IT Act sections 66C, 66D. The prosecution alleged that Mustafa and his co-accused operated a sophisticated online scam using fake Instagram accounts, AI-generated videos, and forged identity documents to defraud people by posing as mobile phone sellers, while converting illicit proceeds into cryptocurrency. The court found sufficient evidence of their criminal activities through recovered devices containing multiple fraudulent accounts, fake banking credentials, and AI tools, determining bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the offenses and threat to public safety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ I

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 337/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Mustafa's bail petition in a case involving online fraud and cybercrime charges under Indian Penal Code sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and IT Act sections 66C, 66D. The prosecution alleged that Mustafa and his co-accused operated a sophisticated online scam using fake Instagram accounts, AI-generated videos, and forged identity documents to defraud people by posing as mobile phone sellers, while converting illicit proceeds into cryptocurrency. The court found sufficient evidence of their criminal activities through recovered devices containing multiple fraudulent accounts, fake banking credentials, and AI tools, determining bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the offenses and threat to public safety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case