VIKAS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1 /1284/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(2)(M),65(1),351(3). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010112162025
Filing Number
BA1 /5669/2025
Filing Date
21-07-2025
Registration No
BA1 /1284/2025
Registration Date
21-07-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIKAS
Adv. ALOK KUMAR,MANISH LOHANI,MANISH LOHANI, ,MANISH LOHANI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-07-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 16-04-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 | |
| 17-02-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 | |
| 10-01-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 | |
| 30-12-2025 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
Orders
The court granted bail to applicant Vikas, who was accused of sexual assault on a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The judge found that after 11+ months in custody, the charge-sheet was filed, witness statements recorded, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness interference, warranting release on personal bond and two sureties. The decision prioritized the prolonged incarceration and expected trial delays over the serious nature of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted bail to applicant Vikas, who was accused of sexual assault on a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The judge found that after 11+ months in custody, the charge-sheet was filed, witness statements recorded, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness interference, warranting release on personal bond and two sureties. The decision prioritized the prolonged incarceration and expected trial delays over the serious nature of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts