Rohit Chaturvedi vs State of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 538

B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Rohit Chaturvedi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR Ms. Aarushi Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Akhtar, Adv. Ms. Rekha, Adv. Ms. Riya Parihar, Adv. Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjukta Das, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Ms. Suveni Bhagat, AOR Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. S.N. Terdal(aor), Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma (aor), Adv. Mr. Shashank Manish, AOR Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Adv. Ms. Pragati Singh, Adv. Mr. Subhdra S. Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Devjani Sarswat, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing letter dated 09.07.2025 of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) (for short “impugned letter”) which rejected the recommendation of the State of Uttarakhand and disallowed the plea of premature release of the petitioner who has been in jail for approximately twenty-two (22) years.

2. This case has a chequered history and its facts may briefly be adverted to. On the basis of a complaint dated 09.05.2003 of the elder sister of the deceased, Case No. 162/2003 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) was registered at Mahanagar Police Station, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) against the petitioner and other accused persons. The investigation was initially carried out by the U.P. State Police and thereafter by CB-CID. However, vide Notification dated 24.06.2003, the case was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Pursuant to the investigation, the petitioner along with other co-accused faced Trial before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, U.P. However, this Court, by its order dated 08.02.2007, in Transfer Petition No. 456/2005, transf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 538

B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYANRohit Chaturvedi – AppellantVersusState of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Cases Referred (9)

B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Rohit Chaturvedi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent