SURENDRA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1 /356/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),348,336(3),338,340(2),61. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.

CNR: UKHC010035792026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

BA1 /1668/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

BA1 /356/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

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

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),348,336(3),338,340(2),61
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000) Section 66(C),66(D)

Petitioner(s)

SURENDRA

Adv. PRABHA NAITHANI,AVIDIT NOLIYAL,AVIDIT NOLIYAL, ,AVIDIT NOLIYAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

12-03-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

16-03-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

12-03-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
16-03-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
25-03-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

The court allowed the modification application and corrected a clerical error in the previous bail order dated 16.03.2026. Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was corrected to read as Section 61(2), with the State offering no objection. The modification was deemed formal in nature and necessary in the interest of justice, leaving all other parts of the original bail order unchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the modification application and corrected a clerical error in the previous bail order dated 16.03.2026. Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was corrected to read as Section 61(2), with the State offering no objection. The modification was deemed formal in nature and necessary in the interest of justice, leaving all other parts of the original bail order unchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Information Technology Act, 2000 (act No. 21 of 2000) All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case