Naziya v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

BA2/53/2026

Naziya

--Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand

--Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J

¶1Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶2Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶3This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Naziya, D/o Matlub Ahmad praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 29.04.2024, bearing FIR No. 120 of 2024 (Criminal Case No. 3183 of 2024) P.S. Kotwali Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal, wherein the applicant is facing the trial for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.

¶4First bail application was rejected on

27.02.2026.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an Advocate as well as deed writer and, though, she was named in the FIR but in the first charge sheet her name was not mentioned but subsequently on the basis of the confessional statement of one of the accused she has been charge sheeted in the supplementary charge sheet. He further submits that the persons who were charged for impersonation has already been enlarged on bail and, other co-accused are either on anticipatory bail or granted regular bail. He further submits that the applicant is 50% handicapped and is languishing in jail since

12.12.2025. He further submits that the applicant has a previous case of the year 2023

in which she is already bailed out and in another case of Gangsters Act she has been granted protection by this Court. He further submits that the trial has already been commenced and the applicant being a married lady and mother of a child who is studying in Class 10th is entitled to get privilege of Section 480(ii) of BNSS 2023.

¶6On the other side, Mr. Sain, learned AGA for the State have not disputed that all the other co-accused have already either been enlarged on bail or are on anticipatory bail except present applicant and also submits that in the first charge sheet applicant was not named and she has been charge sheeted in the supplementary charge sheet and the trial has already been commenced.

¶7After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2025 and other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, and, furthermore, the trial has already been commenced and applicant is a lady, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.

¶8Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶9Let the applicant 'Naziya' D/o Sri Matlub Ahmed be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

( Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

19.06.2026 Parul