HIMANSHU vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1247/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64,137(2). Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010096172026

Filing Number

C528/4613/2026

Filing Date

02-Jun-2026

Registration No

C528/1247/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-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 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64,137(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 5/6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HIMANSHU

    Adv. ABHISHEK JOSHI,Reema Rana,Reema Rana, ,Reema Rana

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.BHAGWAN DAS

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/1247/2026 The court stayed further proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No.11 of 2026 pending before the POCSO/FTC court in Haldwani. The case involves applicant Himanshu accused of abduction; the victim, examined as PW1, did not support the prosecution version and stated she voluntarily accompanied the applicant in a consensual relationship. Notices were issued to respondent no.2 (the complainant/father), returnable at an early date, with the matter to be listed after service report receipt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 02-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1247/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/1247/2026 The court stayed further proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No.11 of 2026 pending before the POCSO/FTC court in Haldwani. The case involves applicant Himanshu accused of abduction; the victim, examined as PW1, did not support the prosecution version and stated she voluntarily accompanied the applicant in a consensual relationship. Notices were issued to respondent no.2 (the complainant/father), returnable at an early date, with the matter to be listed after service report receipt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case