VASEEM ALIAS HAPPA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — CRLA /701/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (act No. 45 of 1860) Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333, 412, 120B. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: UKHC010189622025
Filing Number
CRLA /9800/2025
Filing Date
27-11-2025
Registration No
CRLA /701/2025
Registration Date
27-11-2025
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 ALIAS HAPPA
Adv. VIKAS KUMAR GUGLANI
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 AS DEFECTIVE -236
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-11-2025 | FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236 | |
| 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 set aside the lower court's bail rejection and granted regular bail to Vaseem alias Happa, who was accused of rioting, arson, and violence during a 2024 demolition operation. The court found no direct evidence against the appellant, noting the prosecution could not establish who identified him from CCTV footage, and considered his two-year custody period as a mitigating factor warranting release on bail with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand set aside the lower court's bail rejection and granted regular bail to Vaseem alias Happa, who was accused of rioting, arson, and violence during a 2024 demolition operation. The court found no direct evidence against the appellant, noting the prosecution could not establish who identified him from CCTV footage, and considered his two-year custody period as a mitigating factor warranting release on bail with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts