MOHD MATEEN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — ABA/140/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 420,467,468,471,120B. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010068012026
Filing Number
ABA/3245/2026
Filing Date
24-04-2026
Registration No
ABA/140/2026
Registration Date
24-04-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MOHD MATEEN
Adv. SAURABH KUMAR PANDEY
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 07-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 06-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 02-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: ABA/140/2026 Mohd Mateen's anticipatory bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Justice Rakesh Thapliyal. Mateen was accused of being the main conspirator in preparing forged power of attorneys for a US-based property owner's Dehradun bungalow, charged under BNS 2023 sections 62 and 329(4). The court found that Mateen failed to disclose a prior criminal case and did not approach with clean hands, and after examining the forged documents, determined he was the primary conspirator rather than merely a witness as claimed. Parity argument regarding co-accused who received bail was rejected due to lack of merit-based deliberation in their orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ABA/140/2026 Mohd Mateen's anticipatory bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Justice Rakesh Thapliyal. Mateen was accused of being the main conspirator in preparing forged power of attorneys for a US-based property owner's Dehradun bungalow, charged under BNS 2023 sections 62 and 329(4). The court found that Mateen failed to disclose a prior criminal case and did not approach with clean hands, and after examining the forged documents, determined he was the primary conspirator rather than merely a witness as claimed. Parity argument regarding co-accused who received bail was rejected due to lack of merit-based deliberation in their orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts