2025:UHC:10619 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 BA1 / 1 4 8 9 / 2 0 2 5 W it h BA1 / 1 2 8 0 / 2 0 2 5 W it h BA1 / 1 4 9 1 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Pariskhit Saini, Mr. S.K. Mandal, Mr. Imran Ali Khan and Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik (through Video Conferencing) learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Devender Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicants–Sachin Kumar, Manish Tiwari and Birendra Chatrashahi@Virendra Shahi, who are in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 160 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 111(2)(ii), 115, 127(4), 137(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 1986 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act registered at Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar, have sought their release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution, the Sub- Inspector received information that some Nepalese citizens were being illegally kept in Rudrapur and were facing mental and physical harassment. Acting on this tip- off, the police began an investigation and found that these Nepalese nationals had been moved from Rudrapur to Kashipur. Later, on receiving more specific information, the police conducted a raid at 2025:UHC:10619 the house of Maharaj Singh @ Pappu in Om Vihar Colony, Kashipur. When the police knocked and entered, they found 32 people inside the house, including three minors. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is contended that the prosecution story itself shows that when the police reached the alleged premises and knocked, the door was opened from inside by the occupants themselves; hence, the allegation of illegal confinement is untenable. It is further submitted that upon inquiry, the occupants stated that they had been brought to India on the pretext of employment, that they were residing in a rented accommodation, and that they were working as salesmen. According to counsel, this indicates that the occupants had full freedom, especially as they were engaged in door-to-door marketing, and therefore could approach the police at any time. 7. It is contended that while the police allege that three out of the 32 persons were minors, the charge-sheet does not specify their ages and instead makes only a vague and general assertion. Therefore, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are not attracted against the applicants. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants are distributors with Vision Trading India Pvt. Ltd., a registered company dealing in agricultural products, and that all the alleged victims were voluntarily engaged in network marketing, a lawful occupation. They were paid regular commissions and provided with rented accommodation. 8. Learned counsel would also submit that the applicants are in judicial custody 2025:UHC:10619 since 21.06.2025, have no criminal history, and that the ingredients of kidnapping are not made out. When the police arrived, the occupants were living independently in rented premises and themselves opened the door, negating any element of forcible detention. It is also argued that the trial is likely to take considerable time; hence, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application, contending that 32 Nepali citizens were recovered from the premises in question. However, he does not dispute that the applicants are in judicial custody since 21.06.2025. 10. After hearing both sides and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court finds from the material on record that when the police reached the premises, the occupants themselves opened the door, and there is no indication that the applicants had forcibly taken anyone into custody. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the applicants deserve to be released on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 28.11.2025 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6 7ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266 90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2025.12.01 17:13:41 +05'30' 2025:UHC:10619