HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1512 of 2024
Gufran ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .….Opposite Party
Present:-
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.
First Bail Application No. 1443 of 2024
Amjad ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Sadaf, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.
First Bail Application No. 1444 of 2024
Saeer Ali @ Chhota ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Sadaf, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since all these bail applications arise from one
and the same FIR, they are heard together and being
decided by this common order.
2. Applicants Gufran, Amjad and Saeer Ali @
Chhota are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 03 of
2
2024, under Sections 302, 201 & 120B IPC, Police Station
Buggawala, District Haridwar. They have sought their
release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, the deceased Mukeem had
left his home on 29.12.2023 at about 04:00 p.m., but, he did
not return. A search was made. Subsequently, his dead body
was recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit
that the applicants have not committed any offence; there is
no evidence against the applicants; merely based on the
confessional statements, they have been arrested.
6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that
based on the call details of the deceased, some telephone
numbers were suspected. She would submit that when the
applicants were apprehended; they confessed their guilt. She
would submit that as of now, this is the only material
against the applicants. She would also submit that some
recovery was also made from the applicants, including screw
driver, car and one scarf. On being asked, learned State
Counsel would submit that there is no forensic report of
these objects.
3
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
8. The bail applications are allowed.
9. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
30.08.2024
Avneet/