Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ASHISH NAITHANI
Naziya – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. advocate accused of conspiracy in forged sale deeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. late arrest after charge-sheet and trial start. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. professional drafting not conspiracy absent fraud knowledge. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. advocate central in forgery; antecedents indicate interference risk. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. role emerges in investigation; advocate duty aggravates facilitation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. antecedents matter; parity unavailable; trial interference risk real. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. offence gravity outweighs personal factors in bail denial. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. bail rejected; observations limited to bail disposal. (Para 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
1. The present First Bail Application has been filed by the Applicant, Naziya, who is presently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 120 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024, registered at Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case, as emerging from the FIR and the material placed on record, is that the informant alle
Bail rejected for advocate in forgery conspiracy due to prima facie active facilitation, criminal antecedents, professional misuse aggravating gravity, and witness interference risk despite delayed a....
Anticipatory bail is denied due to serious allegations of conspiracy and fraud, necessitating the potential for custodial interrogation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
