HARISH CHANDRA PANDEY vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — ABA/199/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),336(3),338,319(2),61(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010098092026
Filing Number
ABA/4691/2026
Filing Date
04-06-2026
Registration No
ABA/199/2026
Registration Date
04-06-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
10th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HARISH CHANDRA PANDEY
Adv. S R S GILL,MILIND RAJ,MILIND RAJ, ,KUNDAN SINGH,MILIND RAJ
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 10-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: ABA/199/2026 The Uttarakhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to Harish Chandra Pandey in a land fraud case (FIR No. 36/2025), finding he made out a fit case despite allegations of preparing forged power of attorney documents. The court considered that Pandey was not originally named in the FIR, investigation was complete with charge-sheet filed, and evidence was primarily documentary requiring no custodial interrogation. The bail was conditional on furnishing personal bond, two sureties, cooperating with investigation, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, regular court appearances, and maintaining good conduct, with breach permitting cancellation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ABA/199/2026 The Uttarakhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to Harish Chandra Pandey in a land fraud case (FIR No. 36/2025), finding he made out a fit case despite allegations of preparing forged power of attorney documents. The court considered that Pandey was not originally named in the FIR, investigation was complete with charge-sheet filed, and evidence was primarily documentary requiring no custodial interrogation. The bail was conditional on furnishing personal bond, two sureties, cooperating with investigation, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, regular court appearances, and maintaining good conduct, with breach permitting cancellation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts