SAVEJ vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/2054/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 65(1), 126(2), 137(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010170472025
Filing Number
BA1/8833/2025
Filing Date
29-10-2025
Registration No
BA1/2054/2025
Registration Date
29-10-2025
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 THE TRIAL ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAVEJ
Adv. DR. KARTIKEY HARI GUPTA,RAFAT MUNIR ALI,RAFAT MUNIR ALI, ,IRUM ZEBA,PALLAVI BAHUGUNA,RAFAT MUNIR ALI
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 |
|---|---|
| 31-10-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 07-05-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
| 23-02-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
| 07-01-2026 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
| 16-12-2025 | BAIL ORDER MATTERS (AFTER FRESH) -254 |
Orders
The court rejected the bail application of SAVEJ, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old minor girl under BNS Sections 65(1), 126(2), 137(2) and POCSO Act provisions. The court found the allegations serious and noted that FSL DNA profiling from the victim's biological samples matched the applicant's DNA profile, providing prima facie support for the prosecution case. Considering the gravity of charges, victim's age, and scientific evidence, the court determined no grounds existed to grant bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court rejected the bail application of SAVEJ, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old minor girl under BNS Sections 65(1), 126(2), 137(2) and POCSO Act provisions. The court found the allegations serious and noted that FSL DNA profiling from the victim's biological samples matched the applicant's DNA profile, providing prima facie support for the prosecution case. Considering the gravity of charges, victim's age, and scientific evidence, the court determined no grounds existed to grant bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts