Mohd Nadeem vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. The Court noted that the primary allegation against the applicant was the mixing of duplicate cement in branded bags. The applicant's counsel had argued that the owner of the items had already deposited GST and that the material was raw material for earthing. The Court observed that the applicant had already served two months in jail and, without commenting on the merits of the case, considered it a fit case for bail at this stage. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
Facts
This is a bail application filed by the applicant, Mohd. Nadeem, who is accused in FIR No. 588/2021. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 120B, 476, 482, 483, 486 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51, 63 of the Copyright Act (Amended) 1957. The applicant has been in jail since November 13, 2021. The prosecution's allegation is that the applicant was involved in mixing duplicate cement in branded cement bags. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated, has no criminal history, and has already served two months in jail. It was also contended that the owner of the items had already deposited GST with the Department and that the material was raw material for earthing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering the allegations of mixing duplicate cement and copyright infringement, and the fact that GST has allegedly been deposited by the owner of the items. The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated, has no criminal history, and has already undergone two months of incarceration. He also contended that the material in question was raw material for earthing and that the owner had already deposited GST. The State, while opposing bail, conceded that it had no instructions regarding the applicant's criminal history.
Sections Cited
Section 51, Section 63
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.3134 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State.
Accused–Mohd. Nadeem has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.588/2021 u/s 420, 120B, 476, 482, 483, 486 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 13.11.2021; 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 the De
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.