NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2026 Chandar Kishore Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Rajni Rangwal, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. Applicant is in judicial custody for t...
NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on Jan.10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2026 Parvez Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. The applicant Parvez is in judicial custody for t...
NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2026 Savesh Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. Applicant Savesh is in judicial custody for t...
NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on Jan.10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2026 Angrej Singh Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. The applicant Angrej Singh is in judic...
NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2026 Satayendra Singh Rawat Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Pratul Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kuma...
NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2026 Shubhash Rawat Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Pratul Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,...
NAINITAL, India, March 10 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgmenton Jan. 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 10TH JANUARY, 2026 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2026 Rohit Pal alias Chotu Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Amreen Bano, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. Applicant Rohit Pal alia...
SHILLONG, India, March 10 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties in all the aforesaid three petitions. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. By the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner therein (same petitioner in all the petitions) seeks quashing of the proceeding as well as bailable warrants issued against her b...
SHILLONG, India, March 10 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties in all the aforesaid three petitions. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. By the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner therein (same petitioner in all the petitions) seeks quashing of the proceeding as well as bailable warrants issued against her b...
SHILLONG, India, March 10 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9: 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel, who is also the Legal Aid Counsel in this matter, assisted by Ms. S. Chettri, learned counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2024 and related order of sentence dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ri-Bhoi District,...