Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

“Discretionary Privacy” to “Absolute Privacy”- Larger Bench of SC to decide

Introduction The challenge before SC centres on Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. While...
HomeHigh CourtUttarakhand High CourtUnknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026


Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Since the FIR from which these appeals arose
is one and the same and the offence alleged against them
is also similar, hence both these appeals are taken up
together and decided by this common judgment.

2. CRLA No.284/2025 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 20.03.2025, passed by learned
Special Judge (UAP Act)/Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024
(SST No.01 of 2024), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 333 &

120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 & Section 7 of Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1932 as well as under Section 15/16
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Similarly, CRLA No.454/2025 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 10.07.2025, passed by Special
Judge (UAP Act)/Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024 (SST
No.01 of 2024), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395,
323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 333 & 120B IPC
and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 & Section 7 of Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1932 as well as under Section 15/16
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Both the
FIRs were registered at P.S. Banbhoolpura, District
Nainital. The court below has rejected the bail
application(s) of both the accused in the above-numbered
FIR.



Source link