High CourtsSingle Bench

Arokianathan E. Alias Erokiyanathan E vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 August 2024 · Citation: (2024) 08 UK CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 419, 420, 468, 471 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66D
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 592 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 149 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.141 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station- Special Cell Delhi. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused, having similar role, have already been granted bail

4.

This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.

5.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6.

The bail application is allowed.

7.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.