Mohd. Sameem urf Heera vs State — 159/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 65(1),352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPSR010004292026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
403/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
159/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
6-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Exclusive POCSO Act)
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
42
Police Station
Ikauna
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mohd. Sameem urf Heera
Adv. Kunwar Ved Ratan Mohan Singh
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Exclusive POCSO Act)
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 31-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 28-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 26-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 24-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court granted bail to accused Mohd Sameem (alias Heera) in a case involving charges under BNS Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) and POCSO Act Sections 3/4. The judge found significant inconsistencies in the victim's statements, discrepancies between the FIR and investigation report regarding the incident timing, and noted the accused's exam alibi corroborated by official records. The court concluded there was insufficient credible evidence to substantiate rape allegations and deemed bail appropriate based on facts and circumstances of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court granted bail to accused Mohd Sameem (alias Heera) in a case involving charges under BNS Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) and POCSO Act Sections 3/4. The judge found significant inconsistencies in the victim's statements, discrepancies between the FIR and investigation report regarding the incident timing, and noted the accused's exam alibi corroborated by official records. The court concluded there was insufficient credible evidence to substantiate rape allegations and deemed bail appropriate based on facts and circumstances of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts