Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4897 (UTT)

MOHD TANVEER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/593/2025 · 2025-07-01

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5555 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/593/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Mohd. Tanveer is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 26.07.2023, bearing FIR No. 0620 of 2023 registered at P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar which was lodged against POS 238506557 Alfa Communication, CO Limra Communication Haidri Chowk for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC . 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and one Mohatseen. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he is a salaried employee of the Company and during investigation, owner of the Company was exonerated. She further submits that charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant without any credible evidence and the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2025 and he has no previous criminal history and at the time of arrest, no ground of arrest was given to the applicant, which in fact is a constitutional mandate and as such, the arrest of the applicant is bad in law, therefore, applicant deserves for bail. 6. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State has seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that applicant and other co-accused are involved in sale and activation of 440 SIMS without proper documentation and on the instruction of Department of Telecommunication a preliminary inquiry was done and thereafter, the FIR was lodged and after collecting credible evidence, applicant and other co-accused were found to be indulged in this crime, and both of them have been chargesheeted. 7. He further submits that this aspect cannot be ruled out that it may be an organized crime linking with terrorism and cyber fraud and charge sheet has 2025:UHC:5555 been filed after collecting credible evidence, therefore, applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. I found force on the submission of learned State Counsel. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the bail application and the same is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.07.2025. SKS