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

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

BA1/3502/2026

Filing Date

04-05-2026

Registration No

BA1/734/2026

Registration Date

04-05-2026

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

30th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) Section 7

Petitioner(s)

ANWAR AHMAD

Adv. SHUEB ALI,PIYUSH GARG,PIYUSH GARG, ,PIYUSH GARG

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

06-05-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

28-05-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

30-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case