Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Uttarakhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. December

Mohammad Imran vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 31 December 2024• Citation: BA1/2511/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                    HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL             
                            First Bail Application No.2511 of 2024                  
                  Mohammad    Imran                          .....Applicant         
                                            Versus                                  
                  State of Uttarakhand                    ….….Respondent            
                  Present:-                                                         
                            Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant.               
                            Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.                 
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 583 of      
                  2024,  under Section 143  of the Bharatiya Nyaya  Sanhita,        
                  2023,  and   Section 3, 4,  5, 6  of The  Immoral   Traffic       
                  (Prevention) Act, 1956,  Police Station Rudrapur,  District       
                  Udham   Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.           
                  2.        Heard   learned  counsel  for  the  parties and         
                  perused  the record.                                              
                  3.        Learned  counsel for the applicant would submit         
                  that the applicant has not committed  any  offence. He has        
                  been shown  as a customer.                                        
                  4.        Learned  State counsel admits that the applicant        
                  has been shown  as a customer when  raid was conducted.           
                  5.         Having  considered  the entirety of facts, this        
                  Court  is of the  view that the  applicant deserves to  be        
                  enlarged on bail.                                                 
                  6.        The bail application is allowed.                        

                                               2                                    
                  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.                                                  
                                                      (Ravindra Maithani, J)        
                                                           31.12.2024               
                  Jitendra