BHASKAR JOSHI AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/1137/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(4). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 17th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010105922026

Filing Number

WPCRL/5053/2026

Filing Date

15-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/1137/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

FIR QUASHING ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

17-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHASKAR JOSHI AND ORS

    Adv. BILAL AHMED,ASHOK KUMAR BENIWAL,ASHOK KUMAR BENIWAL, ,ASHOK KUMAR BENIWAL

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER

    Adv. G.A.

  3. 3.VIRENDRA SINGH BISHT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The court disposed of the writ petition challenging FIR No. 194/2026 (registered under BNS Section 316(4) for alleged liquor stock shortage of ₹38,23,390) by directing the police to comply with Arnesh Kumar guidelines before arresting the petitioners. The State counsel consented to this direction, and the court found the petitioners' willingness to cooperate with investigation and absence of absconding risk sufficient to warrant procedural safeguards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 15-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCRL/1137/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court disposed of the writ petition challenging FIR No. 194/2026 (registered under BNS Section 316(4) for alleged liquor stock shortage of ₹38,23,390) by directing the police to comply with Arnesh Kumar guidelines before arresting the petitioners. The State counsel consented to this direction, and the court found the petitioners' willingness to cooperate with investigation and absence of absconding risk sufficient to warrant procedural safeguards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case