SHYAM SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLA/194/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: UKHC010053552023

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

CRLA/2992/2023

Filing Date

10-04-2023

Registration No

CRLA/194/2023

Registration Date

10-04-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

APPEAL ( 3 )

Sub-Category

R.I. ABOVE 10 YEARS & FINE ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 5/6

Petitioner(s)

SHYAM SINGH

Adv. MUKUL DANGI

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

11-04-2023

FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236

07-05-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

18-02-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

15-10-2024

ORDER MATTERS -17

14-06-2024

ORDER MATTERS -17

Orders

07-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Summary of CRLA 194/2023 Shyam Singh's second bail application was rejected. The appellant, convicted under IPC Sections 363, 323 and POCSO Act Sections 5/6 with a 25-year sentence, had been incarcerated since 2019. The court found no new grounds presented beyond long incarceration and noted the appellant had completed less than 50% of his sentence. Given victim's statement of repeated sexual assault and supporting DNA evidence, bail was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRLA 194/2023 Shyam Singh's second bail application was rejected. The appellant, convicted under IPC Sections 363, 323 and POCSO Act Sections 5/6 with a 25-year sentence, had been incarcerated since 2019. The court found no new grounds presented beyond long incarceration and noted the appellant had completed less than 50% of his sentence. Given victim's statement of repeated sexual assault and supporting DNA evidence, bail was denied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case