Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Sudhir Kumar Windlass And Others on 6 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:8785
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No.1741 of 2024, BA1 No.1775 of 2024
BA1 No.1776 of 2024
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for
the applicants.
2. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the
respondent-CBI.
3. Applicants-Ravi Dayal, Mahabir Singh@
Mahavir Sharma and Yogesh Tyagi, are
allegedly employees of one-Sudhir Kumar
Windlass proprietor of M/s Windlass Steelcraft
LLP, Dehradun.
4. The applicants are in jail in connection
with FIR No.RC0072023S0002 dated
13.01.2023 registered with P.S. ACB,
Dehradun, under Sections 120-B r/w 420,
467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC and are facing
trial in Criminal Case No.01 of 2024 CBI Vs.
Sudhir Kumar Windlass and Others, in the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-1st Dehradun.
5. A First Information Report was lodged by
one-Sanjay Singh against Sudhir Kumar
Windlass, applicant-Ravi Dayal and others
alleging therein that the applicants had
entered into a conspiracy and sold out a piece
of land owned by the informant, his mother
and deceased brother by way of a registered
sale deed dated 18.05.2010. The land was
situated in Village Johari, Pargana Kendriya
Doon, District Dehradun. The sale deed was
executed in favour of the applicant-Ravi
2025:UHC:8785
Dayal, who, as already stated above, is
employee of the company of Sudir Kumar
Windlass. Later on, it turned out that the sale
deed was executed by impersonating the
informant, his mother and deceased brother.
Later on the matter was transferred to CBI
and an inquiry was conducted by the CBI
after registration of FIR No.RC0072023S0002
dated 13.01.2023 and the applicants were
arrested. Thereafter, charge-sheet was
submitted against them under Sections 120-B
read with 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicants that the alleged sale deed
which was said to be executed by
impersonating the informant, his deceased
brother and mother, was subsequently
cancelled by filing an Original Suit No.373 of
2014 vide judgment and decree dated
16.10.2015.
7. It is vehemently argued by learned
counsel for the applicants that the sale deed
which has been allegedly executed by the
applicants by impersonation has cancelled in
the year 2015 itself, there was no occasion
for the informant to lodge the FIR in 2022, on
the basis of which, respondent-CBI has also
lodged the FIR on 13.01.2023.
8. It is further argued by him that it's a
case of parity for the reason that one of the
co-accused-Rajendra Singh Rawat, who also
happened to be a conspirator in the alleged
crime and witness of the sale deed, has
already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
2025:UHC:8785
23.08.2024. He further submits that the
offences alleged to have been charged upon
the applicants are all triable by the Magistrate
and further applicants have been under
incarceration since 21.12.2023.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-CBI vehemently opposed the bail
applications on the ground that merely by
cancellation of the alleged sale deed which
has been executed by impersonation of the
informant and his family members by the
accused/applicants cannot obliterate the
offence allegedly committing by the
applicants.
10. So far as the argument of the parity is
concerned, it is contended by learned counsel
for the respondent-CBI that the order itself
speaks that the co-accused has been granted
bail by a Coordinate Bench only on the
ground that he was merely a witness to the
alleged forged sale deed. Though, it is
admitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent-CBI that all the offences alleged
are triable by the Magistrate, but he took a
caveat to this fact saying that the offence
under Section 471 IPC is punishable with life
imprisonment. He also submits that all the
offences levelled against the applicants are
serious enough, and, therefore, the
accused/applicants do not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
11. He also submits that the bail application
of the employer of the applicants, i.e. Sudhir
Kumar Windlass, has been rejected thrice, by
the High Court.
2025:UHC:8785
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the first
information report, this Court is of the view
that there is no wrongful gain and loss to the
parties out of the forged sale-deed, as it was
cancelled subsequently by a decree of Civil
Court. Since the applicants are under
incarceration since 21.12.2023 and further all
the offences are triable by the Magistrate and
charge-sheet has already been filed and the
forged sale deed has already been cancelled
by decree of a Civil Court, this Court is of the
view that the applicants are entitled to be
released on bail.
13. These bail applications (BA1/1741/
2024, BA1/1775/2024 and BA1/1776/ 2024)
are accordingly allowed.
14. The accused/applicants-Ravi Dayal,
Mahabir Singh @ Mahavir Sharma and
Yogesh Tyagi, shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:-
i) They shall furnish personal bond with two
reliable sureties, each of like amount, by
each of them, to the satisfaction of
Magistrate concerned.
ii) They will not leave the country without
prior permission of the Magistrate
concerned and will also deposit their
passport, if any, before the same Court.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.10.2025
PN
