SARFRAJ vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010123002026

2026:UHC:10124
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1232/2026


Sarfraj
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Applicant-Sarfraj, who is in
judicial custody in connection with
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 111 of 2026
(F.I.R. dated 23.03.2026) registered at
Police Station-SIDCUL, District
Haridwar for the offences punishable
under Sections 229(1), 318(4), 338,
340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. has sought
his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that, as per the
prosecution case, the applicant, along
with the other co-accused persons, is
allegedly involved in a racket of
professional sureties, wherein forged
and fabricated documents are used for

UKHC010123002026

2026:UHC:10124
furnishing sureties before the learned
Magistrate. It is alleged that, in
furtherance of the said activity, the co-
accused, namely, Satish, used a forged
Khatauni purportedly prepared in the
name of an Advocate. It is further
alleged that the Aadhaar Card used by
the said co-accused Satish contained
the mobile number of the present
applicant.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that the applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the
present case; that, the applicant is not
named in the F.I.R.; that he has neither
forged any document nor furnished
surety in any criminal case; that, he
has never stood as a surety for any
accused before any Court; and that, he
has no association or connection with
the other co-accused persons. It is
further submitted that there is no call
detail record or any other material to
indicate that the applicant was in
contact with the co-accused persons,
who are residing at different places.
7. earned counsel would contend
that the mere mention of the
applicant’s mobile number on the
Aadhaar Card of co-accused Satish, in
the absence of any other incriminating
material connecting the applicant with
the alleged offence, cannot, by itself, be
sufficient to establish his involvement
in the commission of the alleged crime

UKHC010123002026

2026:UHC:10124
He, therefore, submits that the
implication of the applicant on such a
solitary circumstance is unsustainable
in law.
8. Learned counsel would also
submit that the applicant is
languishing in judicial custody since
26.03.2026; that, there is no likelihood
of his absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence, as he is a
permanent resident of District
Haridwar; and that, the trial is likely to
take considerable time to reach its
logical conclusion. On these grounds,
learned counsel prays that the
applicant be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the prayer for
bail. However, he does not dispute the
fact that the applicant is in judicial
custody since 26.03.2026. He also does
not dispute that the applicant's alleged
involvement in the present crime is
primarily sought to be established on
the basis of the mobile number of the
applicant having been mentioned on
the Aadhaar Card used by co-accused
Satish.
10. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on
record, this Court finds that the
applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and

UKHC010123002026

2026:UHC:10124
his alleged involvement is primarily
sought to be attributed to the fact that
his mobile number was mentioned on
the Aadhaar Card used by co-accused
Satish. There is no specific allegation
that the applicant himself forged any
document or furnished any false surety
before the Court. Having regard to the
nature of the allegations and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that
the applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on
bail, on his furnishing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties, each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.11.2026

Mamta