ASHU URF AAS MOHAMAD vs State of U.P. — 1065/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1). Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 18th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: UPSP010032412026

Case disposed

Filing Number

2974/2026

Filing Date

12-03-2026

Registration No

1065/2026

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

157

Police Station

DEOBAND

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1)
Arms Act Section 3,25,27

Petitioner(s)

ASHU URF AAS MOHAMAD

Adv. DGC

Respondent(s)

State of U.P.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge

18-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Copy of Bail Order

Case Summary: 1065/2026 - Ashu Urf Aas Mohamad v. State of U.P. The court granted bail to the petitioner, Ashu Urf Aas Mohamad, who was accused under IPC Section 109(1) and Arms Act Sections 3/25/27 for allegedly firing on police with intent to cause death during a March 3, 2026 encounter in Saharanpur. The court found insufficient independent evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged weapons seizure, no confirmed injury to any police officer, and noted the petitioner had been in judicial custody since March 4, 2026. Bail was approved on personal bond of ₹40,000 with a surety, subject to conditions including appearance at all hearings and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1065/2026 - Ashu Urf Aas Mohamad v. State of U.P. The court granted bail to the petitioner, Ashu Urf Aas Mohamad, who was accused under IPC Section 109(1) and Arms Act Sections 3/25/27 for allegedly firing on police with intent to cause death during a March 3, 2026 encounter in Saharanpur. The court found insufficient independent evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged weapons seizure, no confirmed injury to any police officer, and noted the petitioner had been in judicial custody since March 4, 2026. Bail was approved on personal bond of ₹40,000 with a surety, subject to conditions including appearance at all hearings and non-intimidation of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case