SALMAN AND OTHER vs State of U.P. — 1071/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),319(2),336(3),338,340(2),61(2). Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 18th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPSP010032332026
Filing Number
2968/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
1071/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
FIR Details
FIR Number
116
Police Station
BEHAT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SALMAN AND OTHER
Adv. MUNVVAR ALI
RAKIB
Respondent(s)
State of U.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
hearing
hearing
hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 1071/2026 Case: Salman (and others) and Rakib v. State of U.P. Court Decision: The bail application of petitioners Salman, Rakib, and others was rejected/dismissed on 18.03.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found sufficient grounds to believe the petitioners committed serious fraud involving property sale. The evidence showed they deceived a buyer by fraudulently conducting a property deed sale for ₹26 lakh (including ₹25 lakh cash and ₹40 lakh cheque), with one accused impersonating another using forged documents and false biometric data at the registrar's office. Given the severity of the offense under IPC Sections 318, 319, 336, 338, 340, and 61, the court determined bail was not warranted at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 1071/2026 Case: Salman (and others) and Rakib v. State of U.P. Court Decision: The bail application of petitioners Salman, Rakib, and others was rejected/dismissed on 18.03.2026. Key Reasoning: The court found sufficient grounds to believe the petitioners committed serious fraud involving property sale. The evidence showed they deceived a buyer by fraudulently conducting a property deed sale for ₹26 lakh (including ₹25 lakh cash and ₹40 lakh cheque), with one accused impersonating another using forged documents and false biometric data at the registrar's office. Given the severity of the offense under IPC Sections 318, 319, 336, 338, 340, and 61, the court determined bail was not warranted at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts