Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2285 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

        Second Bail Application No. 226 of 2023

Ajay Kumar                                      .... Applicant

                               Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                         ..... Respondent

Mr. Akhil Kumar Shah, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S. S. Adhikari, Deputy Advocate General along with Ms. Shivangi
Gangwar, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

                                              Dated: 17.08.2023

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

Applicant Ajay Kumar, who is in judicial

custody in FIR No. 216 of 2022, under Sections 420,

467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 IPC, Police Station

Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his

release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on file.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused

would submit that the only allegation against the

applicant/accused is that blank degrees of University of

Meghalaya were received at the instance and pointing

out of applicant/accused and such degrees do not come

in the category of Valuable Security, therefore, the

offence under Section 467 IPC is not made out against

the applicant/accused. He would further submit that the

applicant/accused is in judicial custody since

12.11.2022; that, there is no previous criminal history

against him. He would further submit that the co-

accused Navdeep Singh Bhatia with similar role has

already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

08.05.2023; that, the charge sheet has been filed against

the applicant/accused, therefore, no purpose would be

served by keeping him behind bars as there are bleak

chances of conviction of the applicant/accused in the

present case.

4. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel

for the applicant would place reliance on a judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in re "Shriniwas Pandit

Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra and connected

matters", (1980) 4 SCC 551.

5. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the

State vehemently opposed the bail application, however,

he does not dispute the fact as stated by counsel for the

applicant/accused. He also admitted at Bar that the co-

accused Navdeep Singh Bhatia with similar role has

been granted bail by this Court.

6. In the circumspection of facts as stated above,

without expressing any opinion about merits of the case

before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this

is a case fit for bail.

7. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed.

Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond

with two sureties in the amount of ₹ 70,000/- and

personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the learned Trial Court. It is directed that the

applicant/accused will not leave India without

permission of the court.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 17.08.2023 Akash