HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.464 of 2025 Firoz Khan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 231 of 2024, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant procured Permanent Residence Certificate after making forgery in the Khatauni. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not forged any document; he had no need to forge any document; as per prosecution, he was given a Khatauni of the Fasli Year 1417; even from that date, he had procured Permanent Residence Certificate; he had not need to forge or make a Khatauni of the Fasli Year 1402; even it is argued that, in fact, there is no certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant forged the Khatauni. He had given it to one Praveen Rawat, who had scanned those documents. The applicant did not give any original copy. 2 6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. There are two parts of the prosecution case. One, the forgery in the extract of the Khatauni. Second, using it to get the Permanent Residence Certificate of the State of Uttarakhand. It is a prosecution case that the applicant procured the extract of Khatauni of the Fasli Year 1417, but he changed it so as to appear that it belongs to Fasli Year 1402. He did not give original documents for uploading. He gave a photocopy and procured a Permanent Residence Certificate. It is a very serious issued. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 17.06.2025 Jitendra