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 Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN on 06th May 2026.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
Filing Number
C482/6192/2021
Filing Date
03-Sep-2021
Registration No
C482/1186/2021
Registration Date
03-Sep-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
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAGAR BADOLA
Adv. CHITRARTH KANDPAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
-
2.JAPAL SING MAAN
Adv. PRIYANSHU GAIROLA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Sagar Badola's application C482/1186/2021 as withdrawn.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.
-
01-Oct-2021
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
-
06-Sep-2021
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chandra KhulbeView PDF
-
06-Sep-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Sep-2021
Case filed
Registration No. C482/1186/2021
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Sagar Badola's application C482/1186/2021 as withdrawn.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.
Explore other courts