AMJAD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — BA1 /243/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),127(2),137(2),352,64(2) (M). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 08th April 2026.

CNR: UKHC010023852026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

BA1 /1143/2026

Filing Date

17-02-2026

Registration No

BA1 /243/2026

Registration Date

17-02-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),127(2),137(2),352,64(2) (M)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 5(I)/6

Petitioner(s)

AMJAD

Adv. PRANAV SINGH

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

19-02-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

08-04-2026

ORDER MATTERS -17

16-03-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

08-04-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to Amjad, a 22-year-old accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the BNS 2023 and POCSO Act. The court found that contradictions in the victim's statements and General Diary entries regarding the consensual nature of the relationship warranted deeper scrutiny at trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, determined the applicant had made out a case for bail. He was released on personal bond with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to Amjad, a 22-year-old accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the BNS 2023 and POCSO Act. The court found that contradictions in the victim's statements and General Diary entries regarding the consensual nature of the relationship warranted deeper scrutiny at trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, determined the applicant had made out a case for bail. He was released on personal bond with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case