Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
291 judgments · newest first · showing 201–291
The applicant, Anas Urf Popa, sought bail in a case filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He argued that the FIR was vague, lacking specific allegations that fit the statutory definitions of "gang" or "gangster," and that similar bail …
The applicant, Bachcha Bharteey @ Karan Kumar Bhartiya, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, alleging that the seizure of 106.15 g of Alprazolam was false …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Deepu @ Suraj Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (CrPC 108 of 2026) under Sections 105 and 115(2) of the IPC. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Arjun, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 12 of 2025) under Section 105 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed false implication, noting a significant delay between the alleged incident and the FIR, and highlighted that the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an accused, Savita, who was charged under Section 108 of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act for allegedly abetting the suicide of her husband. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged six months …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Monu @ Manmohan, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 115 of 2026) involving alleged assault and homicide. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the post‑mortem indicated prior medical …
Shubham Rai was arrested in a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 43 of 2025) under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that the recovered cash and mobile phone belonged to him and that there was no …
The High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the CrPC for Monu Pal, who was arrested in connection with a case under IPC Sections 305, 331(4) and 317(2). The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the alleged recovery of weapons and money lacked independent …
The applicant, Ravindraraja @ Ganu, was arrested in a case (Crime No. 196 of 2024) based on information from an informer, although his name did not appear in the FIR. The prosecution alleged recovery of anklets, coins and Rs.2450, but there was no independent witness and the only evidence against …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Salman in a case registered under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, and that there were no independent …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Salman in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3576 of 2026, seeking release in a case (Crime No. 292 of 2025) under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was falsely …
Sonveer was arrested on 10‑11‑2025 in connection with a case (Crime No. 682 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 305, 331(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed on 23‑10‑2025, more than a month after the alleged incident, and the applicant’s name was omitted from it. …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 for Kailash Lodhi, who had been in custody since November 2017 for alleged offences under Sections 396 and 412 IPC. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the recovery was false, and that no identification …
The bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12457 of 2026) filed by Chandrabhan against the State of U.P. was listed before the Hon’ble Justice Vivek Varma. The applicant was represented by counsel G.S. Chauhan and the opposite party by G.A. and Haya Rizvi. No factual or evidentiary …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shabnam @ Suman, who was charged under Sections 108, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant contended that the death was a suicide by hanging, with no evidence of her instigating or aiding the act, and cited …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Hemlata, who was arrested under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the FIR was filed five days after the alleged incident, showing a fatal delay, and that the investigation had been …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aman (alias Amaan) in a case under several IPC sections relating to alleged indecent assault and related offences. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing out a four‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any indecent …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jadawati Vishvakarma, who was alleged to have participated in the assault leading to the death of an informant’s wife. The FIR named her among six accused, but the post‑mortem report indicated injuries that were old and the cause of death was …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ratan Sonkar, who was charged under Sections 108 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. for allegedly recording and circulating an indecent video of his sister‑in‑law before her death, which the prosecution claimed led to her suicide. The applicant contended …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anjesh, accused in Crime No. 126 of 2025 under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had no medical background, and that the post‑mortem report could not determine the cause of death, with the …
Krishna Kumar was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case involving alleged violations of the IPC, Income‑Tax Act and Public Gambling Act. He contended that he was not named in the FIR, that the mobile number and transaction attributed to him were false, and that there was no independent or …
Mohd Rafeeq applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 11 of 2025) involving alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, Income Tax Act and Public Gambling Act. He contended that he was not named in the FIR, that the mobile number and transaction attributed to him were false, and that there …
Ranveer Kumar was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 11 of 2025) based solely on information from an informer, although his name does not appear in the FIR. The applicant contended that the mobile number and alleged transaction attributed to him were false, and that there was …
Alok Kumar was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 11 of 2025) involving alleged offences under the B.N.S., Income Tax Act and Public Gambling Act, but he was not named in the FIR. The applicant contended that the mobile number and transaction attributed to him were false, and that the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Shishupal Singh, who was charged under IPC sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) in a land‑fraud case. The applicant argued that he was merely the purchaser of the land, had paid full …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Banti Kumar in Criminal Case No. 545 of 2025, where he was alleged to have participated in an assault that caused the death of the informant's son. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a one‑day delay in …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dipak Baheliya, who was arrested in connection with the murder of an informant's uncle. The applicant alleged false implication, noting that the post‑mortem report identified a single fatal head injury (injury no. 4) and that he was not …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Manish Tiwari under Section 75(1)(i) of the Bail and Surrender Act and Sections 9m/10 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the informant refused a medical examination of the child and that there was no …
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Vikas under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in connection with Crime No. 547 of 2025. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, lacking specific allegations that fell …
Mohammad Danish applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 52 of 2026) alleging violations of Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The applicant contended that the recovery of cow remains, meat and alleged slaughtering instruments was …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bhura under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, relating to a pending criminal case (Crime No.31 of 2026). The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, lacking specific allegations that fit …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramcharan Verma under Section 483 of the CrPC in a case registered under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant contended that the recovery of 28.135 kg of ganja from a swift car, in which he was merely a passenger, was false and …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anurag Gupta, who was in custody since 2 February 2026 in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the statutory definition of a "gang" or …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pradyuman Singh and Ankit Singh under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicants argued that the FIR was vague, did not specifically allege an act covered by the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Harvindra, who was in custody since 24 January 2026 for an offence under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the …
The Allahabad High Court considered bail application No. 12189 of 2026 filed by Rahim, who is charged under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 for alleged disturbance of public order and related offences. The applicant contended that the FIR was …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ram Ji Gond, who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 108 of the B.N.S. alleging abetment of suicide. The post‑mortem report indicated death by asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, and the prosecution’s evidence, including witness …
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Yash Saini, who was arrested under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the statutory …
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Farukh Muhammad Shikalgar under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the definition of …
Shamim Khan was arrested in connection with offences alleged under various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and other statutes. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a one‑day delay in filing the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Harish Pal in a narcotics case (Crime No. 45 of 2026) under the NDPS Act. The applicant alleged false implication, claiming that the seizure of 23.9 kg of ganja was irregular, with violations of mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52‑A …
The Allahabad High Court considered bail application No. 12194 of 2026 filed by Ankur Nagar, who is charged under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 for alleged disturbance of public order. The applicant contended that the FIR is vague, lacking …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu @ Kalim @ Ena, who is charged under Section 109(1) of the B.N.S., Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, and Sections 3, 25 and 28 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at police and possessing a pistol, cartridges and cow meat. The …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ranjan Yadav under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, did not allege any act falling within the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ashik Rajpoot, who was charged under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing on a police party. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, noting that no police were injured, he …
The applicant, Radheshyam Singh, was arrested along with co‑accused Ankit Yadav at a petrol pump and charged under several sections of the Essential Commodities Act and related statutes. He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no involvement in the alleged fuel‑related offences, and …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shadab under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not specifically allege acts defining a "gang" or "gangster", and that he had …
The applicant, Suraj @ Mukhiya, sought bail in a case filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, alleging that the FIR was vague and did not disclose a specific gang‑related offence. The applicant argued that he had previously been granted …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for the accused Saudan, who was charged under Sections 140(4), 351(3) of the BNSS and Sections 5M/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out a four‑day delay between the alleged incident …
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Naved Urf Dulha, who was arrested under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the definition of …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajij Ahmad in a case under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, where 300 grams of alleged opium was recovered. The applicant argued that the recovery was false, there was no independent witness, …
The applicant, Dilshad, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 422 of 2025) involving alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, the B.N.S., and the Information Technology Act. He argued that he was not named in the FIR and was only implicated by statements of co‑accused arrested at the scene, …
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Sartaj in a case registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the statutory definition of a "gang" or "gangster", …
Harshit Gupta was arrested in a case under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 500 g of opium. He contended that the recovery was false, there was no independent witness, the seized quantity was below commercial levels, and mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52‑A …
Amarjeet Yadav applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.24 of 2026) filed under Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not allege any act fitting the definition of a "gang" or …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Islam, who was charged under Sections 3, 5A and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11Gha of the Animals Cruelty Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and was only implicated by a co‑accused’s statement, which the court …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Firasat @ Lala under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in a case involving alleged recovery of 1,140 grams of charas. The applicant argued that the recovery was false, there was no independent witness, …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohd. Ali, who was detained on 13‑03‑2026 in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague and did not satisfy the definition of a "gang" or "gangster" under Section …
Manvendra (Monu) applied for bail in a case under Sections 317(2), 317(5) of the IPC and the Arms Act, alleging that the recovery of a pistol, cartridges and ornaments was false and that there is no independent witness or corroborative evidence beyond his confession. The State opposed bail on the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jitendra @ Jeetu Savita, husband of a deceased woman, in a case (Crime No. 0201 of 2025) alleging abetment of suicide under Sections 85 and 108 of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant argued that the death was due to …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mithun, accused in Crime No. 233 of 2025 under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 and 105. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that the principal offender was the co‑accused Reeta Devi, who allegedly caused the fatal head …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Meghshyam, husband of a woman who died by hanging, in Criminal Case No. 673 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 108(1) and 85 of the B.N.S. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a four‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the …
The applicant, Golu alias Ranveer, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a session case involving alleged extortion, assault and other offences. He contended that the allegations were vague, that no substantive evidence linked him to the alleged …
Karnal Singh applied for bail in a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 4 of 2025) under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), 238, 111(2)b of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act. The FIR was lodged on 9 January 2025 despite the alleged illicit transactions beginning on 26 …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jeesan, accused in a POCSO case (Criminal No. 552 of 2025) involving alleged rape of a 16‑year‑old girl. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly, there were inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim’s statements under Sections …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sudheer Yadav, who is charged under IPC sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4 for alleged offences involving theft, kidnapping, rape and sexual assault. The applicant contended that the victim, a major, had her age …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Janved, accused under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, asserting that the victim, aged 17 per an ossification test (with a two‑year error margin), had …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sanjeet Kol @ Kallu in a criminal case (Crime No. 190 of 2024) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighting a delayed FIR, the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sargam, accused under Sections 137(2), 64, 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged incident on 19‑11‑2025. The FIR was lodged on 28‑11‑2025, a delay the court deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case. The victim, …
The Allahabad High Court considered the bail application of Monu @ Chhotu @ Chhotelal, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)m of the B.N.S., Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act. The court observed that the FIR was …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amarnath Sahani, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2), 61(1), 70(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, pointing out inconsistencies between the FIR, …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sawan, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 64(1) and 69 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(1) of the POCSO Act, alleging a sexual offence that allegedly occurred on 18‑10‑2025. The applicant contended that the victim …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajbabu @ Babuan, who is charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged incident on 28‑11‑2025. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the victim was a minor …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramesh in a case under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, citing a six‑day delay in filing the FIR and alleging that the victim’s age was incorrectly recorded, …
Dr. Nafees applied for bail in a case where he was not named in the FIR but was later mentioned in a second statement, with only a vague role assigned. The alleged incident involved minor injuries to two persons and there is no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offences. The State …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the CrPC for Hariom, who was implicated in a case involving multiple IPC offences but was not named in the FIR. The applicant argued that his name surfaced only during investigation and that there was no credible evidence …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saraswati Devi, who was implicated in a criminal case (Crime No. 119 of 2025) under Section 105 of the B.N.S. and Section 15(2)(B) of the Indian Medical Council Act. The applicant argued that she was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Abhishek Singh, who was charged under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the post‑mortem report showed death by antemortem hanging and that the facts disclosed in the FIR did not satisfy the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamal Singh, who was charged under Sections 302, 420, 201, 475 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the informant’s later statement implicating him was unreliable, further noting that …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Farhan Raza Khan in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43299 of 2025, relating to case No. 1146 of 2025 involving several IPC offences. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR and was only mentioned in a later statement, with a …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dharmendra Kumar Saroj in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the CrPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out the FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident and that …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raj, who was arrested in Crime No. 105 of 2025 under several sections of the B.N.S. Act and sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sumit in a criminal case under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, citing inconsistencies between the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S., lack of any injury …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Golu Balmiki, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was …
The Allahabad High Court considered bail application No. 4005 of 2026 filed by Babu Ram Rajbhar in criminal case No. 205 of 2025, which is instituted under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vipin Pandey in a criminal case (Crime No. 237 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(1) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, citing an ossification test that placed the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Roshan in Criminal Case No. 655 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 352 of the IPC and Sections 5(I)/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, arguing that the victim, a major, had …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nadeem, accused under Sections 70(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged repeated rapes of a minor. The prosecution presented testimony of the informant (PW‑1) and the minor victim (PW‑2), both supporting the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saeen, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 246 of 2025 under Section 105 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed she was falsely implicated and that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident, which she argued weakened the …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saurabh Dubey, husband of a deceased woman, who was charged under Sections 85, 352, 108, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged abetment of suicide. The …
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Haseen, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 74, 64(1), 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged …
