BA1/1917/2022 of MUKARRAM ALI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- Mukarram Ali (PETITIONER)
- State of Uttarakhand (RESPONDENT)
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALFirst Bail Application No.1917 of 2022
Mukarram Ali
...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
...Respondent
Present:- Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant, Mukarram Ali is in judicial custody in FIR No. 110 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC, Police Station Selakui, District Dehrdun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. According to the FIR, in the instant case, the
applicant persuaded the informant to purchase certain property from the co-accused Sanjeev Malik and Pooja Malik. The FIR records that Rs.98 Lakh were transmitted in the account of applicant. Rs.98 Lakh were paid to the applicant through online transaction or cash. But subsequently, it was revealed that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were shown by the co-accused Sanjeev Malik were totally forged and the applicant and the co-accused cheated the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not commit any wrong. He wanted to purchase property from the co-accused Sanjeev Malik and Pooja Malik. He is victim. The informant also wanted to purchase the property. Therefore, informant deposited Rs.40 Lakh in the account of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant transmitted Rs.90 Lakh in the account of the co-accused Sanjeev Malik and Pooja Malik.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that, the document purportedly signed by the Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court was forged. It was so written by the Hon’ble Judge himself. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“the SEBI”) also confirmed that the documents which were purportedly issued by the SEBI were forged. The seal was also forged and the transaction was done by the applicant based on forged documents.
6. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
7. The bail application is rejected.
Jitendra
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)01.12.2022