RAJENDRA SINGH NEGI ALIAS RAJU vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/553/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),352. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010054752026

Filing Number

BA1/2571/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

BA1/553/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-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-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),352
Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) Section 30

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRA SINGH NEGI ALIAS RAJU

    Adv. RAJNI SUPYAL/LATWAL,DEVESH UPRETI,DEVESH UPRETI, ,DEVESH UPRETI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF

    Case Summary The Uttarakhand High Court rejected the bail application of Rajendra Singh Negi, accused of firing a gun at three people causing pellet injuries, under Sections 109(1) and 352 of BNS and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The court found that despite the applicant's claims of false implication and clean criminal record, the state's evidence of previous criminal history and the heinous nature of the offense warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA1/553/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Uttarakhand High Court rejected the bail application of Rajendra Singh Negi, accused of firing a gun at three people causing pellet injuries, under Sections 109(1) and 352 of BNS and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The court found that despite the applicant's claims of false implication and clean criminal record, the state's evidence of previous criminal history and the heinous nature of the offense warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case