High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohd. Nazim vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 December 2024 · Citation: (2024) 12 UK CK 0002

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 379, 411, 465, 468, 471 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 35(1), 106
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2289 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

10 paragraphs · 311 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.442 of 2024, registered at police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

2.

The applicant-Mohd. Nazim is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 379, 411, 465, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 35(1) and Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

As per the First Information Report, the motorcycle (Registration No. UK1759612) of the informant was stolen on 01.06.2024. The First Information Report has been lodged on 03.06.2024. It is alleged that along with the said vehicle, other stolen vehicles were also recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused.

4.

Heard Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for State.

5.

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate, has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. He is not a previous convict, and, he is in judicial custody since 27.09.2024.

6.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate has opposed the bail application orally.

7.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8.

The Bail Application is allowed.

9.

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