ANWAR AHMAD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/734/2026
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) Section 7. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 30th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010073712026
Filing Number
BA1/3502/2026
Filing Date
04-May-2026
Registration No
BA1/734/2026
Registration Date
04-May-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
30-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ANWAR AHMAD
Adv. SHUEB ALI,PIYUSH GARG,PIYUSH GARG, ,PIYUSH GARG
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
Case Summary: BA1/734/2026 - Anwar Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to Anwar Ahmad, who was in judicial custody for alleged corruption under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found merit in the applicant's contentions that no illegal gratification was recovered during searches, he was not caught red-handed, there were no independent witnesses, and the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate him due to pending investigations against the complainant and his brother. Accordingly, Ahmad was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-May-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
06-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. BA1/734/2026
Case Summary: BA1/734/2026 - Anwar Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand The Uttarakhand High Court granted bail to Anwar Ahmad, who was in judicial custody for alleged corruption under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found merit in the applicant's contentions that no illegal gratification was recovered during searches, he was not caught red-handed, there were no independent witnesses, and the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate him due to pending investigations against the complainant and his brother. Accordingly, Ahmad was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts