2025:UHC:3286 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/738/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad (through V.C.) learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant – Mohatsin, son of Illiyas, is seeking regular bail in relation to FIR dated 26.07.2023 bearing FIR No. 0620 of 2023, registered at Police Station – Mangalore, District – Haridwar which was lodged against POS 238506557 Alfa Communication CO Limra Communication Haidri Chowk, Bhanheda, Tanda Road, Mangalore, Haridwar for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and only on the basis of suspicion, present applicant has been arrested 5. Apart from this, he submits that no ground of arrest was given to the applicant, at the time of arrest of the applicant, which is in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, therefore, applicant deserves for bail. He further submits that entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the present applicant and applicant is a local resident, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. He further submits that for similar nature of offence, one FIR was also lodged against the present applicant, which is disclosed in para 5 of the bail application. He further submits that counter affidavit has been called in the case of co- accused. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application. He submits that present applicant is also facing criminal case of similar nature with the allegations of 440 SIMS wherein he forged the adhar cards of 2025:UHC:3286 several persons by putting photographs of other persons. He further submits that this appears to be an organized crime. He further submits that investigation is going on and if applicant is released on bail, it may affect the investigation, as he has criminal antecedents and allegations appears to be serious in nature. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further gone through with the contents of the FIR and paragraph 7 of the bail rejection order wherein there is disclosure of criminal history of the applicant, this Court is of the view that applicant does not deserves for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.04.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:3286