Amir Firdaush vs state — 687/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2)(A)(i),89,115(2),352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 19th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPST010022962026
Filing Number
2112/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
687/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
38-ADJ Fast Track Court -I
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
FIR Details
FIR Number
55
Police Station
Baldi Rai
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Amir Firdaush
Respondent(s)
state
Hearing History
Judge: 38-ADJ Fast Track Court -I
Disposed
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Bail Application 687/2026 Court Decision: The bail application of Amir Firdaush is REJECTED. Key Facts & Reasoning: Amir Firdaush, a police constable, is accused under IPC Sections 64(2)(a)(i), 89, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of luring a married woman with false promises of marriage, engaging in sexual relations without consent, causing her pregnancy, and threatening her life. The complainant provided detailed statements and medical evidence (positive UPT report) corroborating the charges. The court found prima facie evidence against the accused and determined that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the offenses, the accused's position as a police officer (creating flight risk and witness tampering concerns), and the vulnerability and threats faced by the victim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Bail Application 687/2026 Court Decision: The bail application of Amir Firdaush is REJECTED. Key Facts & Reasoning: Amir Firdaush, a police constable, is accused under IPC Sections 64(2)(a)(i), 89, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of luring a married woman with false promises of marriage, engaging in sexual relations without consent, causing her pregnancy, and threatening her life. The complainant provided detailed statements and medical evidence (positive UPT report) corroborating the charges. The court found prima facie evidence against the accused and determined that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the offenses, the accused's position as a police officer (creating flight risk and witness tampering concerns), and the vulnerability and threats faced by the victim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts