Mohammad Rashid vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. The Court noted that the only allegation against the accused was his involvement in mixing duplicate cement in branded cement bags. The petitioner's counsel argued that the owner had already deposited GST and that the material was raw material for earthing. The Court observed that the accused had already served two months in jail. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting bail at this stage. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
Facts
This is a bail application filed by Mohammad Rashid, the accused, in connection with FIR No. 588/2021. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 120B, 476, 482, 483 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51, 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner was arrested on 12.11.2021 and has been in jail since then. The allegation is that the accused was involved in mixing duplicate cement in branded cement bags. The petitioner's counsel argued that the accused has been falsely implicated, has no criminal history, and is ready to furnish sureties. It was also contended that the owner of the items had already deposited GST, and the material was raw material for earthing. The State counsel opposed the bail but had no instructions regarding criminal history.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 588/2021 registered under Sections 420, 120B, 476, 482, 483 IPC and Sections 51, 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant has been falsely implicated, has no criminal history, and has been in jail for two months. The owner of the items had already deposited GST, and the material in question was raw material for earthing. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application but fairly submitted that no instructions were received regarding the criminal history of the accused.
Sections Cited
Section 51, Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
BA1 No.3150 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State.
Accused–Mohammad Rashid has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.588/2021 u/s 420, 120B, 476, 482, 483 IPC and Section 51, 63 of the Copyright Act (Amended) 1957, registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun.
It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 12.11.2021; there is no criminal history against him; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail but fairly submitted that he did not receive any instructions regarding criminal history of the accused.
It is the only allegation against the accused that he was involved in mixing duplicate cement in the bag of branded cement; it is the only contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the owner of the items had already deposited GST before t
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.