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. January

Nadeem vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 31 January 2024• Citation: BA1/143/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                       Office Notes, reports,                                     
                       orders or proceedings                                      
          SL.                                                                     
                Date    or directions and       COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS        
          No                                                                      
                       Registrar’s order with                                     
                         Signatures                                               
             31.01.2024           BA1 No. 143 of 2024                             
                                  Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.                    
                                          1. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the   
                                  applicant.                                      
                                          2. Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate
                                  General for the State/respondent.               
                                          3. The present applicant is seeking regular
                                  bail in relation to the FIR No. 263 of 2023, lodged on
                                  04.06.2023, wherein the present applicant has been
                                  implicated for the offences punishable under    
                                  Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 419 IPC read
                                  with Sections 63, 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 
                                  Sections 102, 104 of Trademark Act, 1999 registered
                                  at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh
                                  Nagar.                                          
                                          4. It is contended by the learned counsel for
                                  the applicant that the applicant was not named in
                                  the FIR and the co-accused who were named in the
                                  FIR, they have already been enlarged on bail by this
                                  Court. The co-accused, namely, Kamal Sagar was  
                                  enlarged on bail by this Court on 29.08.2023 and
                                  another co-accused Waseem was enlarged on bail by
                                  this Court by order dated 13.12.2023.           
                                          5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
                                  that even both the co-accused are the main accused
                                  who  have been enlarged on bail, and the only   

                                  allegation against the present applicant was that a
                                  release application was moved by the applicant in
                                  the name  of one Munazir, though, in fact, the  
                                  applicant has not moved any such application.   
                                          6. Per contra, Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned 
                                  Deputy Advocate General for the State has fairly
                                  submitted that the investigation is going on and the
                                  applicant has no criminal history. He also fairly
                                  submitted that other co-accused, who are named in
                                  the FIR have already been granted bail by this Court.
                                          7. After considering the arguments of the
                                  learned counsel for the parties and taking into 
                                  consideration that the main accused have already
                                  been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that
                                  the applicant deserves bail.                    
                                          8. The Bail Application is allowed.     
                                          8. Let the applicant-Nadeem be released on
                                  bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two
                                  reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the
                                  satisfaction of the Court concerned.            
                                                           (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 
                                                             Vacation Judge       
                                                              31.01.2024          
                                  Mahinder/