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
Filing Number
BA1/1143/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
BA1/243/2026
Registration Date
17-Feb-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
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 29-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AMJAD
Adv. PRANAV SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
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.
-
08-Apr-2026
Order Matters -17
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
-
19-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
19-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. BA1/243/2026
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.
Explore other courts