HEMANT RAINA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — ABA/219/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010103172026
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
ABA/4936/2026
Filing Date
11-06-2026
Registration No
ABA/219/2026
Registration Date
11-06-2026
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)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HEMANT RAINA
Adv. PRAGYA PRAKASH UPADHYAY,RAKSHIT JOSHI,RAKSHIT JOSHI, ,RAKSHIT JOSHI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: ABA/219/2026 Petitioner: Hemant Raina Respondent: State of Uttarakhand Court: High Court of Uttarakhand Judge: Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Outcome: Interim anticipatory bail granted. The court found that Raina's apprehension of arrest for alleged sexual offenses under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was founded on concrete facts (WhatsApp conversations indicating threats and a written compromise at police station). The court rejected the argument that absence of an FIR defeats jurisdiction and conditionally granted interim anticipatory bail requiring: (i) cooperation with investigation, and (ii) no contact with witnesses. Case listed for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ABA/219/2026 Petitioner: Hemant Raina Respondent: State of Uttarakhand Court: High Court of Uttarakhand Judge: Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Outcome: Interim anticipatory bail granted. The court found that Raina's apprehension of arrest for alleged sexual offenses under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was founded on concrete facts (WhatsApp conversations indicating threats and a written compromise at police station). The court rejected the argument that absence of an FIR defeats jurisdiction and conditionally granted interim anticipatory bail requiring: (i) cooperation with investigation, and (ii) no contact with witnesses. Case listed for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts