[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1097/2025 on 27 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1455
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1097/2025
With
BA1/1473/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel in
BA1 No.1097 of 2025 and Mr. Gaurav
Singh, learned counsel in BA1 No.1473
of 2025 for the applicants.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
A.G. for the State.
3. In both the aforesaid first bail
applications, the F.I.R./Case Crime
Number and the incident in question are
the same; therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, both the
bail applications are being decided
together by this common order.
4. The applicants - Naseem and
Julfkar, who are in judicial custody in
connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No.
111 of 2025, registered under Sections
109(1), 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 61(2) of
the B.N.S. and Section 25/3 of the Arms
Act, Police Station Bahadrabad, District
Haridwar, have sought their release on
bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. As per the prosecution case, the
F.I.R. was lodged by a police official
alleging that while he along with other
police personnel was on patrolling duty,
information was received that two
persons travelling in a white Swift car
were circulating counterfeit currency
2026:UHC:1455
notes. It is alleged that when the police
party attempted to stop the said vehicle,
the persons sitting inside opened fire
upon the police party. Thereafter, the
vehicle allegedly collided with an electric
pole, pursuant to which applicant
Naseem was apprehended at the spot
along with counterfeit currency notes,
whereas applicant Julfkar allegedly fired
upon the police party and sustained a
gunshot injury in his leg during
retaliatory firing. It is also alleged that
from the possession of applicant Julfkar,
a country-made pistol along with
cartridges and counterfeit currency notes
were allegedly recovered. Similarly, from
applicant Naseem, a country-made .315
bore pistol and two packets of ₹500
denomination notes were recovered.
Upon checking, it was found that the top
and bottom notes in the packets were
genuine while the remaining were
allegedly counterfeit currency.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely
implicated; that, there is no independent
public witness to the alleged recovery;
that, the entire recovery is planted; and
that no member of the public has come
forward alleging having received
counterfeit currency from the applicants.
It is further argued that though it is
alleged that applicant Julfkar opened fire
upon the police party, no police
personnel sustained any injury. It is also
submitted that applicant Naseem has no
criminal history, and applicant Julfkar is
not a previous convict; only one case is
stated to be pending against him, which
is unrelated to counterfeit currency.
2026:UHC:1455
8. It is argued that the maximum
punishment under the relevant
provisions, particularly Section 180
B.N.S., is seven years and under the
Arms Act is three years. The applicants
are in custody since 01.03.2025; that,
their bail applications have been rejected
by the court below vide orders dated
28.03.2025 and 08.04.2025; that, the
applicants are permanent residents of
District Haridwar and there is no
likelihood of their absconding or
tampering with evidence; that, the trial is
likely to take considerable time to
conclude, therefore, the applicants be
released on bail.
9. Learned State counsel opposed the
bail applications, contending that serious
allegations are levelled against the
applicants involving use of firearm and
recovery of counterfeit currency.
However, he does not dispute that the
applicants are in custody since
01.03.2025 and that their earlier bail
applications were rejected by the court
below.
10. Having considered the rival
submissions and perused the material
available on record, this Court finds that
the case rests primarily upon alleged
recovery effected by the police party; no
independent public witness has been
shown to have been associated at the
time of arrest or recovery. Whether the
recovery is genuine or otherwise is a
matter of evidence to be tested during
trial.
11. Without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case and considering
the nature of allegations, period of
incarceration, absence of any substantial
2026:UHC:1455
criminal history (particularly in respect
of applicant Naseem), and the settled
principles governing grant of bail, this
Court is of the view that the applicants
have made out a case for grant of bail.
12. Accordingly, both the bail
applications are allowed.
13. Let the applicants be released on
bail in the aforesaid case crime number,
subject to their furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned
14. It is made clear that the
observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present bail
applications and shall not affect the
merits of the case during trial.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
27.02.2026
Mamta
MA
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.02.27 19:45:18
+05'30'
