MOHIT DAS ALIAS ROHIT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/422/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

CNR: UKHC010042162026

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Number

BA1/1986/2026

Filing Date

18-03-2026

Registration No

BA1/422/2026

Registration Date

18-03-2026

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)

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 5,6

Petitioner(s)

MOHIT DAS ALIAS ROHIT

Adv. SIDDHANT MANRAL,HARSH RAUTELA,HARSH RAUTELA, HARSH RAUTELA

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

RAJU VARMAN

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

20-03-2026

FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236

09-06-2026

ORDER MATTERS -17

22-05-2026

ORDER MATTERS -17

30-04-2026

ORDER MATTERS -17

10-04-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

22-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Case Summary: BA1/422/2026 The bail application of Mohit Das alias Rohit against the State of Uttarakhand was adjourned. The court directed that the victim's 10th Class certificate be produced before the next hearing, fixed for 09.06.2026, to verify the victim's age at the time of the alleged incident. The applicant's counsel argued that the victim was nearly a major and the relationship was consensual. No bail decision was rendered on this date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: BA1/422/2026 The bail application of Mohit Das alias Rohit against the State of Uttarakhand was adjourned. The court directed that the victim's 10th Class certificate be produced before the next hearing, fixed for 09.06.2026, to verify the victim's age at the time of the alleged incident. The applicant's counsel argued that the victim was nearly a major and the relationship was consensual. No bail decision was rendered on this date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case