Mustaq Kadri Vs State of Uttarakhand

¶1

2025:UHC:2749

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

First Bail Application No.1493 of 2024

¶4

Mustaq Kadri ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant.

¶6

Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned AGA with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J

¶8

The applicant has filed the present bail application seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Case Crime No.1086 of 2022, registered at Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sections 363, 370(5), 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶9

The present case came to light following the applicant’s arrest on 16.11.2022 in Crime No.773 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. During custodial interrogation in that matter, the applicant allegedly made a disclosure that led to the registration of the present FIR.

¶10

As per the prosecution, the applicant had been impersonating an official associated with child welfare organisations, namely the Juvenile Aid Centre and Prayas Child Helpline.

¶11

He allegedly trafficked minor children by projecting that such children were being placed for adoption through legal channels. He pointed out that two minor children had recovered one from Kadoli, Raipur, Dehradun, and another from Badaun, Uttar Pradesh.

¶12

1

¶13

2025:UHC:2749

¶14

Notably, one of the recovered children, Rupesh, was already reported missing in FIR No. 543 of 2022 registered at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi. Forged seals of Prayas Child Helpline and Juvenile Aid Centre, as well as digitally altered imagery resembling official logos and seals, were recovered from the applicant’s possession.

¶15

It is further alleged that the applicant prepared forged adoption affidavits and utilised them to deceive potential guardians and obtain monetary consideration in the name of legal adoption.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in a serious case without foundational verification.

¶18

It is urged that the documents said to have been recovered from the applicant’s possession, including the seals and adoption papers, have not yet been verified or certified by any competent authority as forged.

¶19

The applicant contends that the investigating agency has failed to determine whether he was affiliated with the organisations mentioned.

¶20

Furthermore, it is argued that no child was recovered from the applicant at the time of arrest; instead, all alleged recoveries were made through others or after his custody. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in continuous judicial

¶21

2

¶22

2025:UHC:2749

¶23

custody since 23.11.2022, and the charge sheet in the matter has already been filed.

¶24

There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing any witness, and the applicant’s continued incarceration serves no lawful purpose. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and has deep roots in society, thereby dispelling any risk of abscondence.

¶25

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations against the applicant are not only grave but also reveal a carefully orchestrated child trafficking operation.

¶26

The State asserts that on the basis of the applicant’s disclosure, two kidnapped minor children were recovered from two different States.

¶27

One of the victims had been previously reported missing and was traced to a family that had “adopted” him on the basis of fabricated documents allegedly provided by the applicant.

¶28

The fabricated seals of child welfare organisations and downloaded digital material resembling official symbols were also recovered from the applicant.

¶29

The investigation has further revealed that the applicant has multiple criminal antecedents, including FIR No. 773/2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, and FIR No. 543/2022 under Section 363 IPC.

¶30

3

¶31

2025:UHC:2749

¶32

It is contended that the offences in question reflect a pattern of deceit and impersonation, targeting vulnerable people, and that the applicant poses a serious risk of repetition of offence, threatening or influencing witnesses, or fleeing from the process of law. Given the systematic nature of the offence, the State contends that this is not a fit case for the grant of bail.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that there exists prima facie material to suggest the applicant’s involvement in a premeditated and deceitful scheme of child trafficking.

¶34

The recovery of two minor children pursuant to the applicant’s disclosure, the forged seals and affidavits found in his possession, and the statements of multiple witnesses under Section 161 CrPC lend substantial support to the prosecution’s version.

¶35

The applicant’s contention that the documents have not yet been officially verified may be relevant for the trial. Still, at the stage of considering bail, this Court cannot be oblivious to the surrounding circumstances, including impersonation, monetary transactions, and exploitation of child welfare channels under the cover of legitimacy.

¶36

The Court also notes that a crucial witness, Smt. Seema, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, stated that the applicant introduced himself as an employee of a government orphanage, took monetary consideration of an amounting to 42000 Rs, and handed over a child under the false pretext of legal adoption.

¶37

4

¶38

2025:UHC:2749

¶39

¶40

The criminal antecedents of the applicant and his

¶41

involvement in similar offences also carry significant weight in

¶42

the assessment of his entitlement to bail. The present case does

¶43

not represent an isolated incident; rather, it reflects conduct in

¶44

furtherance of an organised and repetitive criminal enterprise.

¶45

¶46

If released on bail at this stage, there remains a tangible

¶47

apprehension that the applicant may attempt to tamper with

¶48

evidence, intimidate witnesses, or abscond.

¶49

¶50

In State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, the

¶51

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases involving systemic exploitation of vulnerable groups and institutions, bail ought to be

¶52

denied unless compelling reasons to the contrary are shown. In

¶53

the present case, the magnitude of the allegations, the nature of

¶54

the material recovered, and the social implications of the crime

¶55

leave no room for this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of

¶56

the applicant.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

In view of the gravity of the offence, the material on record, and the applicant’s antecedents, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for the grant of bail.

¶59

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.)

¶60

01.04.2025

¶61

NR

¶62

NITESH RAWAT Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Date: 2025.04.16 14:53:21 +05'30'

¶63

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

¶64

5

Mustaq Kadri v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustaq Kadri v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashpal Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yunus Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunil Sindhi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shahzad Alam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand