PRAMENDRA DOBAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C482/1314/2023
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section C482. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010103842023
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
C482/5819/2023
Filing Date
03-07-2023
Registration No
C482/1314/2023
Registration Date
03-07-2023
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF POLICE CHALLANI CASES ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRAMENDRA DOBAL
Adv. PIYUSH GARG
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
MUKTA MEHRA
Adv. MANISHA BHANDARI,SAURABH KUMAR PANDEY DHRUV CHANDRA
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FOR FINAL HEARING -40
FOR FINAL HEARING -40
FOR FINAL HEARING -40
AFTER FRESH MATTERS -128
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-07-2023 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 08-06-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING -40 |
| 14-05-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING -40 |
| 13-05-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING -40 |
| 05-05-2026 | AFTER FRESH MATTERS -128 |
Orders
Case Summary: C482/1314/2023 Case Adjourned. The High Court of Uttarakhand heard arguments from the State and applicant regarding investigative procedures and a prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC. The State's counsel argued the prosecutrix had adequate opportunity to request statement recording during investigation but failed to do so. The matter was adjourned to 13.05.2026 at 2:15 PM for the respondent-complainant's arguments, with the Additional Advocate General directed to examine the original record in the interim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C482/1314/2023 Case Adjourned. The High Court of Uttarakhand heard arguments from the State and applicant regarding investigative procedures and a prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC. The State's counsel argued the prosecutrix had adequate opportunity to request statement recording during investigation but failed to do so. The matter was adjourned to 13.05.2026 at 2:15 PM for the respondent-complainant's arguments, with the Additional Advocate General directed to examine the original record in the interim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts