Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4955 (UTT)

MURAD ALAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/2374/2025 · 2026-02-27

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS MCRC No.1 of 2026 (Correction Appl.) In BA1 No.2374 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Correction application is not opposed by learned State Counsel. 3. Having considered the averments made in the correction application, it is apparent that Sections 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act were inadvertently omitted from the order dated 27.02.2026 passed in Bail Application (BA1 No. 2374 of 2024) relating to the applicant, namely, Murad Alam. 4. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the correction application is allowed and the aforesaid Sections, i.e., Section 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, shall stand added in the order dated 27.02.2026, qua the applicant. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 10.03.2026 Arpan