HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1407 of 2024
Abdul Sami alias Bhela ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 134
of 2024, under Sections 363, 368, 370, 120B IPC and
Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Banbhulpura, District
Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, two girl victims were
found missing. According to the prosecution case, co-
accused Tanzeem had taken them. Initially, they were
taken in the brother-in-law’s house of the co-accused
Tanzeem. There, it is the prosecution case that the sister
of co-accused Tanzeem made a telephone call to the
applicant, who told them that a report had already been
lodged.
2
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the applicant has no role. The only role
assigned to him is that co-accused Tanzeem’s sister
Nisha did make a call to him and he informed that police
has reported the matter. It is argued that it makes out a
case for bail.
5. These factual aspects are not denied by the
learned State counsel. He would submit that the only role
assigned to the applicant is that the sister of the co-
accused did make a call to him and it is the applicant
who informed the sister of co-accused Tanzeem that an
FIR has been lodged in the matter.
6. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. 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.)
30.09.2024
Jitendra