DANISH QURESHI ALIAS MOHAMMAD DANISH QURAISHI ALIAS MD. DANISH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - BANDANA SINHA — B.A./2992/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 103(1),85,BNS. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 13th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010062302026
Filing Number
B.A./4153/2026
Filing Date
18-Feb-2026
Registration No
B.A./2992/2026
Registration Date
09-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
SECTION 483 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 20-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DANISH QURESHI ALIAS MOHAMMAD DANISH QURAISHI ALIAS MD. DANISH
Adv. RAHUL PANDEY, ,BHANU KUMAR No.1
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - BANDANA SINHA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Danish Qureshi, who has been in custody since August 2025 for offences under BNS Sections 103(1) and 85 related to an AHD scam case. The court found that despite the petitioner's claims of false implication and the key informant turning hostile, the ongoing trial with 3 of 8 witnesses already examined warranted continued custody at this stage. The court directed expedited trial completion with prompt witness production. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Apr-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./2992/2026
The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Danish Qureshi, who has been in custody since August 2025 for offences under BNS Sections 103(1) and 85 related to an AHD scam case. The court found that despite the petitioner's claims of false implication and the key informant turning hostile, the ongoing trial with 3 of 8 witnesses already examined warranted continued custody at this stage. The court directed expedited trial completion with prompt witness production. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts