Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7753 (UTT)

SARAFAT HUSSAIN ALIAS KABADI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1000/2025 · 2025-06-12

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:4865 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1000 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Sarafat Hussain @ Kabadi’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 18.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 0041 of 2025 P.S. Vanbhoolpura, District Nainital, wherein, the present applicant along with four others namely Aman Siddiqui, Shoaib, Ms. Sajia and Asim @ Buddha were implicated for the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been shown as the member of the gang headed by Aman Siddiqui though in fact he have no nexus with the gang leader and in all the previous cases the applicant has been bailed out. 5. In paragraph 5 the details of the previous cases has been given and on perusal of which it reveals that out of 9 cases 7 cases pertains to the NDPS Act. On perusal of the criminal history of the present applicant it reveals that the present applicant is habitual offender indulge in the criminal activities including in respect of the offence relating to the NDPS Act and if the applicant is enlarged on bail then it is not for the betterment of the society. 6. On the other side, learned Additional Advocate General Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt also seriously oppose the bail application by submitting that the applicant have criminal history though he is bailed out but appears to be a habitual offender. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the long history of the criminal cases of the present applicant, this court is of the view 2025:UHC:4865 that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 12.06.2025 PR