KISHAN SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/1078/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

CNR: UKHC010100522026

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

Filing Number

WPCRL/4802/2026

Filing Date

08-06-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/1078/2026

Registration Date

08-06-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

MISC MATTERS ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

KISHAN SINGH

Adv. MANISHA BHANDARI,PRITISH ARYA,PRITISH ARYA, ,SAURABH KUMAR PANDEY,SHASHWAT SIDHANT,PRITISH ARYA

RANEES AHMED

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

Adv. G.A.

SUPERINTENDENT

Adv. G.A.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

10-06-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

17-06-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

10-06-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

WPCRL/1078/2026 Summary Petitioners Kishan Singh and Ranees Ahmed sought premature release, claiming eligibility under Uttarakhand's premature release policy, but their cases were not recommended. The court adjourned the matter to 17.06.2026 and directed the State Counsel to provide a categorical explanation for denying their premature release recommendation despite apparent policy eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

WPCRL/1078/2026 Summary Petitioners Kishan Singh and Ranees Ahmed sought premature release, claiming eligibility under Uttarakhand's premature release policy, but their cases were not recommended. The court adjourned the matter to 17.06.2026 and directed the State Counsel to provide a categorical explanation for denying their premature release recommendation despite apparent policy eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case