VINAY KUMAR MAURYA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/308/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2),351(2),65(1),352. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010030122026
Filing Number
BA1/1420/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
BA1/308/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
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
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VINAY KUMAR MAURYA
Adv. VIPUL SHARMA,NIVESH BAHUGUNA,NIVESH BAHUGUNA, ,KHUSHBOO TIWARI SHARMA,MANEESH BISHT,NIVESH BAHUGUNA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ORDER MATTERS -17
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-02-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 23-04-2026 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 |
| 18-04-2026 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 |
| 23-03-2026 | ORDER MATTERS -17 |
| 18-03-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: BA1/308/2026 Court Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court rejected Vinay Kumar Maurya's bail application. Judge Ashish Naithani found that the applicant failed to establish grounds for bail despite arguments of false implication and jail delay. Key Reasoning: The court prioritized protection of the minor victim (age 15) and the severity of sexual offense charges under BNS 2023 and POCSO Act 2012. The State's opposition prevailed based on the victim's minor status and nature of allegations involving forcible sexual intercourse and subsequent harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: BA1/308/2026 Court Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court rejected Vinay Kumar Maurya's bail application. Judge Ashish Naithani found that the applicant failed to establish grounds for bail despite arguments of false implication and jail delay. Key Reasoning: The court prioritized protection of the minor victim (age 15) and the severity of sexual offense charges under BNS 2023 and POCSO Act 2012. The State's opposition prevailed based on the victim's minor status and nature of allegations involving forcible sexual intercourse and subsequent harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts