Allowed

Shoaib Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Jun 2025ABA/1326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought anticipatory bail for allegedly enticing the informant's son into online trading with promised returns that were not paid; counsel argued it was a business dispute over profits and no offence was made out. The Court allowed the application, making interim bail absolute on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail made absolute; anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs.30,000 and two like sureties per applicant, with conditions.

Shoaib Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4543

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶4

04^th JUNE, 2025

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1326 OF 2024

¶6

Shoaib Ahmad and Others Ver	sus	..... Applicants
State of Uttarakhand		..…Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant	:	Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent	:	Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Informant	:	Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate.

¶7

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶8

The present Application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 560 of 2024, registered at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar under Sections 308(5), 318(4), 333, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶9

2. As per the First Information Report, the applicants enticed the son of the informant to invest in their online trading with the assurance of higher returns, but the returns were not given.

¶10

3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent and Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the informant.

¶11

¶12

2025:UHC:4543

¶13

4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that it

¶14

is a case of business transaction. The son of the informant was studying in the United Kingdom. The informant was into the online trading. Applicants also joined that business. The dispute is with regard to the profits, therefore, no offence, as alleged, is made out.

¶15

5. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. They are permanent residents of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding, and, they were granted interim bail on 06.01.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by them.

¶16

6. Objections have not been filed by the respondent and the informant. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for the respondent and Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the informant have opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

¶17

7. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on

¶19

¶20

2025:UHC:4543

¶21

the merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and the order dated 06.01.2025, granting interim bail to the applicants, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Shoaib Ahmad, Mohd. Akib Gaur, Abdul Malik alias Monis, Matloob Hasan, Sharukh Ali, Mohd. Shaqib, Mohd. Suhail and Umar alias Bhura, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (iii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case. (iv) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

¶24

9. It is made clear that if the applicants misuse or

¶25

violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶26

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶27

Dt: 04.06.2025 Shiv/

¶28

Shoaib Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoaib Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahnkar Sahokar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hitesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Trivendra Singh Pokhriyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanskriti Uniyal Vs G B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology

Vasu Sharma Alias Rahul Vs State of Uttarakhand

Riyasat Husain Alias Riyasat Vs State of Uttarakhand