VIJAY SHARMA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLR/455/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438/442. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010104182026

Filing Number

CRLR/4990/2026

Filing Date

12-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRLR/455/2026

Registration Date

12-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

REVISIONS ( 4 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438/442

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIJAY SHARMA

    Adv. SHAILENDRA NAURIYAL,Tilak Ram Sharma,Tilak Ram Sharma, ,Tilak Ram Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: CRLR 455/2026 - Vijay Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand Vijay Sharma challenged his conviction for theft (IPC Sections 381, 411) and three-year rigorous imprisonment sentences. The High Court admitted the revision petition and suspended his substantive sentence pending proceedings, granting bail on personal bond and two sureties, considering his compliance during trial/appeal, clean criminal record, and arguments that the master-servant relationship essential for Section 381 conviction was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLR/455/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRLR 455/2026 - Vijay Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand Vijay Sharma challenged his conviction for theft (IPC Sections 381, 411) and three-year rigorous imprisonment sentences. The High Court admitted the revision petition and suspended his substantive sentence pending proceedings, granting bail on personal bond and two sureties, considering his compliance during trial/appeal, clean criminal record, and arguments that the master-servant relationship essential for Section 381 conviction was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case