MOHD SUHAIL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — ABA/204/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 351(2),351(3),69. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010098352026
Filing Number
ABA/4709/2026
Filing Date
04-06-2026
Registration No
ABA/204/2026
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)
MOHD SUHAIL
Adv. PIYUSH SAMMAL,NEERAJ SINGH KAIRA,NEERAJ SINGH KAIRA, ,ANJU MEHTA,SARITA BISHT,NEERAJ SINGH KAIRA
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/204/2026 Court Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to MOHD SUHAIL in an FIR involving charges under Sections 351(2), 351(3), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the parties had a known relationship lasting approximately three years, allegations rest primarily on matters of evidence for trial, and no material demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation. Conditions: The applicant must furnish a personal bond with two sureties, remain available for investigation and trial, refrain from tampering with evidence or witnesses, maintain good conduct, appear regularly in court, and cannot leave the country without permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ABA/204/2026 Court Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to MOHD SUHAIL in an FIR involving charges under Sections 351(2), 351(3), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the parties had a known relationship lasting approximately three years, allegations rest primarily on matters of evidence for trial, and no material demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation. Conditions: The applicant must furnish a personal bond with two sureties, remain available for investigation and trial, refrain from tampering with evidence or witnesses, maintain good conduct, appear regularly in court, and cannot leave the country without permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts