Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. jointly rejected bail applications by Sanjeev and Pooja Malik accused of forging documents and selling CBI-custody property under Supreme Court SCHEME involving forged signatures and seals, citing serious nature of the crime.
Bail applications dismissed; warrant to be executed for arrest and production in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.737 of 2022
Sanjeev Malik ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ..Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
With
First Bail Application No.2065 of 2022
Pooja Malik ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these bail applications arise from one
and the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.
2
3
was also forged and the transaction was done by the applicants based on forged documents.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.12.2022
Jitendra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to applicants accused of selling seized property on the basis of forged documents involving the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Whether the severity of the offense involving forged documents signed by a Supreme Court Judge warrants the rejection of bail applications.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Malik
Pooja Malik
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
