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

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1739

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


COURT’S OR JUDGES’S Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions No and Registrar’s order with Signatures 2026:UHC:4009 BA1 No. 594 of 2026 Sameer alis Chikna ....Applicant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Javed, S/o Tahir Ahmad, R/o Shakti Mohalla, Roorkee, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 99 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A) and 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, while pressing the bail application, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 16.03.2026. It is contended that the Applicant has not committed the alleged offence and was neither present at the spot nor was any incriminating article recovered from his posse

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