Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/53/2026 of NAZIYA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 2026
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 1. Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani,
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
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.
1. Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This 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.
4. First bail application was rejected on 27.02.2026.
5. Learned 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.
6. On 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.
7. After 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.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let 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