Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Harivansh Magluria – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail should not be denied based on cctv alone. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for bail emphasize lack of prior history. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court acknowledges ongoing investigation's impact on bail decision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court scheduled for further action based on state response. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length in both the bail applications by submitting that both the applicants are the students and pursuing their studies and have been falsely implicated in the FIR lodged on 23.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0058 of 2025 P.S. Premnagar, District Dehradun.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat gives reference of various provisions of the IT Act as well the Evidence Act. First of all, he gives reference of Section 2(t) and Section 79(A) of the IT Act and submits that only on the basis of CCTV footages the bail cannot be denied to the applicants. He submits that while rejecting bail application the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that CCTV footages are not only the piece of evidence for rejecting the bail application and as such the learned court below committ
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
