UKHC010112282026 2026:UHC:5946-DB Office Notes, reports, orders orS proceedingL. Date s or COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERSN directionso. and Registrar’s order with Signatures HABC/28/2026 Pankaj Kushal Singh Jain --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel (appeared through V.C.) along with Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned A.A.G. along with learned D.A.G. and Mr. Sunil Updhadyay, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Raghav Singhal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.2-CBI. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the arrest of the petitioner in CBI Case No.RC0072025E0007 dated 26.11.2025 as illegal, unconstitutional and void, and direct the Respondents to release the petitioner forthwith; b) Quash and set-aside the transit remand order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in respect of the petitioner (contained as Annexure No.5, Page No.229-233). c) Quash and set aside the police custody remand order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Special Judge, BUDS Act, Dehradun, concerning the petitioner, (contained as Annexure No.6, Page No.234-244).”

5. Learned State Counsel submits that detention cannot be termed as illegal, as there is an order of remand passed by learned Special Judge, BUDS Act, UKHC010112282026 2026:UHC:5946-DB Dehradun. He further submits that grounds of arrest were mentioned in detail in the arrest memo, therefore, contention that petitioner's arrest is illegal is without any force. 6. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that he has been informed that a charge-sheet has been filed by CBI, therefore, he does not want to press the writ petition, and writ petition be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn in view of subsequent development. 7. In view of oral statement made by Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition (Habeas Corpus) is dismissed as withdrawn. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.07.2026 AKAVNEETKAUR DigitallyDN:2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0e245a1c11df9aa490cfd1403838bf52f9acab4cc3a5b9,serialNumber=5BEC18DADE54688668187E4D722C2EDBFDAF35AB2F676A551481BE62508FDDEE,Date:c=IN,2026.07.17signedo=HIGHby17:16:56COURTAVNEETOF+05'30'KAURUTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, postalCode=263001,cn=AVNEETst=UTTARAKHAND,KAUR UKHC010112282026 2026:UHC:5946-DB