SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3485

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
VISHAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Office Notes, reports, orders or SL. proceedings or Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS No directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures

15.12.2025 BA1 No.1469 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent.

2. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, submitted that the alleged victim has not supported the case of the prosecution before the trial. He has sought two days’ time to file a copy of the statements of the victim.

3. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has also sought two days’ time to get instruction.

4. Time is granted.

5. List on 18.12.2025 after fresh cases.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

15.12.2025 Neha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top