SAGAR BADOLA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C482/1186/2021

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section 406. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN on 06th May 2026.

CNR: UKHC010107252021

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

C482/6192/2021

Filing Date

03-09-2021

Registration No

C482/1186/2021

Registration Date

03-09-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF POLICE CHALLANI CASES ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section 406

Petitioner(s)

SAGAR BADOLA

Adv. CHITRARTH KANDPAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

JAPAL SING MAAN

Adv. PRIYANSHU GAIROLA

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

06-09-2021

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

01-10-2021

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

06-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Sagar Badola's application C482/1186/2021 as withdrawn. The applicant requested withdrawal after a related matter (C-528 Application 909/2026) arising from the same facts was allowed based on an amicable settlement in a civil suit for recovery of alleged embezzled amount. The court granted permission to withdraw without expressing any opinion on the merits, with both the State and Respondent No. 2 consenting. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Sagar Badola's application C482/1186/2021 as withdrawn. The applicant requested withdrawal after a related matter (C-528 Application 909/2026) arising from the same facts was allowed based on an amicable settlement in a civil suit for recovery of alleged embezzled amount. The court granted permission to withdraw without expressing any opinion on the merits, with both the State and Respondent No. 2 consenting. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case