VASEEM SIDDIQUI ALIAS HAPPA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLA /677/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (act No. 45 of 1860) Section 147,148,149,307,332,353,427,435,436,120B. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: UKHC010183832025
Filing Number
CRLA /9515/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
CRLA /677/2025
Registration Date
18-11-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
APPEAL ( 3 )
Sub-Category
R.I. ABOVE 10 YEARS & FINE ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VASEEM SIDDIQUI ALIAS HAPPA
Adv. VIKAS KUMAR GUGLANI,RISHABH BISHT,RISHABH BISHT, ,RISHABH BISHT
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-12-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 19-03-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 | |
| 12-03-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 | |
| 27-02-2026 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
Orders
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed Vaseem Siddiqui alias Happa's criminal appeal and set aside the lower court's bail rejection order, directing his immediate release on regular bail. The court found no direct evidence against the appellant despite charges under IPC sections and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act related to a February 2024 rioting incident; the prosecution could not establish who identified him from CCTV footage, and having spent two years in custody, he was entitled to bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed Vaseem Siddiqui alias Happa's criminal appeal and set aside the lower court's bail rejection order, directing his immediate release on regular bail. The court found no direct evidence against the appellant despite charges under IPC sections and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act related to a February 2024 rioting incident; the prosecution could not establish who identified him from CCTV footage, and having spent two years in custody, he was entitled to bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts