SEHRAJ v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2025-01-10. SEHRAJ v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No. 52 of 2025 Ahsaan ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. Respondent Anticipatory Bail Application No. 53 of 2025 Sehraj ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. Respondent Anticipatory Bail Application No. 54 of 2025 Kurbaan ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. Respondent Anticipatory Bail Application No. 55 of 2025 Sultana ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. Respondent Anticipatory Bail Application No. 56 of 2025 Aslam ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …. Respondent Present:- Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since all these anticipatory bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants-Ahsaan, Sehraj, Kurbaan, Sultana, and Aslam seek anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.
640 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120- B IPC, Police Station Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, the informant had executed two power of attorneys in favour of co-accused Suleman and Ashraf on 10. 07. 2023, which she subsequently revoked on 31. 07. 2023. But despite knowing that the power of attorneys have already been revoked, the property was transferred in the name of the applicants Sehraj and Sultana, and in those transfer deeds, applicants Ahsaan, Kurbaan and Aslam were witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that co-accused Suleman and Ashraf, in whose favour power of attorney was executed by the informant, have already been granted bail by the trial court. The bail orders have been placed on record. 6. These facts have not been denied by learned State Counsel. 7.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail applications deserve to be allowed. 8. The anticipatory bail applications are allowed. 9. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicants shall also comply with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation. (ii) The applicants shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever. (iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned. (iv) The applicants shall deposit their passports with the AO. The passports may only be returned by the order of the court concerned.
In case the applicants do not have passport, they shall give an undertaking to that effect to the AO. (v) The applicants shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above. (Ravindra Maithani, J. ) 10. 01. 2025 Ravi Bisht
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.