Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/733/2026 of MAHBOOB ALIAS NANU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 14 August 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures UKHC010073682026 2026:UHC:7296 COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/733/2026 Mahboob Alias Nanu --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures UKHC010073682026
2026:UHC:7296
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/733/2026 Mahboob Alias Nanu
--Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidhya, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application is moved on behalf of the applicant-Mahboob @ Nanu, S/o Meer Hasan, for seeking regular bail in reference to first information report dated 31.05.2025 bearing FIR No.0431 of 2025, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar wherein the present applicant is implicated and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 65(2), 74, 75, 75(1)(i)(ii) BNS, 2023 read with Section 5 m/6, 9m/10 of POCSO Act.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of incident the applicant was about 70 years old and the allegations are completely false and the prosecution story cannot be believed taking into consideration the age of the present applicant. He also submits that there is no scientific evidence and the sole eye witness of the incident is already declared hostile.
He further submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2025 and already suffered incarceration of more than one year and there is no substantial progress in the trial.
5. On the other side, Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA have not disputed that the trial has already been commenced and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2025 and she has also not disputed about the age of the present applicant, who, at the time of the incident was 70 years old.
6. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the present applicant at the time of incident and the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and the sole eye witness Raj Mistri is already declared hostile by the trial court and is in judicial custody since last more than one year, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the present applicant-Mahboob @ Nanu be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- “i. Applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) Applicant shall not make any attempt to give any threat to the victim and her family members and will not make any attempt to temper with the evidence.
In breach of any such conditions as aforesaid, the prosecution is free to move an application for cancellation of bail.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.08.2026 Arti