Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1000/2025 on 12 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:4865
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No. 1000 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State.
3. The present applicant ‘Sarafat Hussain @
Kabadi’ is praying for regular bail in relation to
First Information Report dated 18.02.2025 bearing
FIR No. 0041 of 2025 P.S. Vanbhoolpura, District
Nainital, wherein, the present applicant along
with four others namely Aman Siddiqui, Shoaib,
Ms. Sajia and Asim @ Buddha were implicated for
the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that applicant has been shown as the
member of the gang headed by Aman Siddiqui
though in fact he have no nexus with the gang
leader and in all the previous cases the applicant
has been bailed out.
5. In paragraph 5 the details of the previous
cases has been given and on perusal of which it
reveals that out of 9 cases 7 cases pertains to the
NDPS Act. On perusal of the criminal history of
the present applicant it reveals that the present
applicant is habitual offender indulge in the
criminal activities including in respect of the
offence relating to the NDPS Act and if the
applicant is enlarged on bail then it is not for the
betterment of the society.
6. On the other side, learned Additional
Advocate General Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt also
seriously oppose the bail application by
submitting that the applicant have criminal
history though he is bailed out but appears to be a
habitual offender.
7. After hearing the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and further taking into
consideration the long history of the criminal cases
of the present applicant, this court is of the view
2025:UHC:4865
that the applicant does not deserve for bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
12.06.2025
PR