GULFAM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/925/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305(C),317(2). Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010074862026

Filing Number

C528/3562/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

C528/925/2026

Registration Date

05-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF POLICE CHALLANI CASES ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 305(C),317(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GULFAM

    Adv. VINOD TIWARI,MOHIT DURGAPAL,MOHIT DURGAPAL, ,RAJAT PANDEY,MOHIT DURGAPAL

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER

    Adv. G.A.

  3. 3.ASHOK REKHI

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/925/2026 GULFAM filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking to quash the chargesheet and proceedings in a theft case where an iPhone was stolen from a train and recovered from his possession. GULFAM claimed he purchased the phone from his neighbor Farman at a throwaway price after Farman confessed to stealing it. The court found merit in his submissions and stayed further proceedings against GULFAM pending next hearing; notice issued to respondent no. 3 returnable within three weeks, with counter-affidavits to be filed by respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/925/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/925/2026 GULFAM filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking to quash the chargesheet and proceedings in a theft case where an iPhone was stolen from a train and recovered from his possession. GULFAM claimed he purchased the phone from his neighbor Farman at a throwaway price after Farman confessed to stealing it. The court found merit in his submissions and stayed further proceedings against GULFAM pending next hearing; notice issued to respondent no. 3 returnable within three weeks, with counter-affidavits to be filed by respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case