Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1746/2025 on 17 October, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No. Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 1746 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. The applicant - Vinay Bisnoi, who is in
judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/FIR No. 0144 of 2025, under Sections
316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of B.N.S.,
registered at P.S.- Rajpur, District Dehradun,
has sought his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the
complainant on 09.08.2025 alleging therein
that the applicant alongwith his brother-in-law
have induced him to purchase a piece of land
situated in Rajpur Road, Dehradun, wherein,
they have alleged themselves to be the owner
of the property. By this inducement, the
complainant gave them Rs. 15 Lakhs in cash
and it was agreed that the value of the land
was Rs. 15 crores. Later on, the complainant
discovered that they were not the owner of
the land, therefore, he asked them to return
back his money. The applicant and his
brother-in-law returned back Rs. 3 Lakhs, but,
when the complainant asked for the remaining
amount, the applicant and the son of the
applicant threatened him of dire
consequences.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that in this case, an FIR has been
lodged under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and
351(2) of B.N.S., and the maximum sentence
under these Sections is of seven years.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has
further placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation & another, reported
in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein it has been
held that, in cases, where the punishment
prescribed is up to seven years'
imprisonment, arrest of the accused is not
mandatory and, if made, the Arresting
Officer is required to record his satisfaction
as mandated under Sections 41(1)(b)(i) and
41(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel
vehemently opposed the bail application.
9. Having considered the rival submissions
and under the facts and circumstances of the
case and also considering the period of
incarceration already undergone by the
applicant; the nature of allegations levelled
against him, this Court is of the view that it is
a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves
to be enlarged on bail.
10. Accordingly, the present bail application
is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail on
his executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000
and furnishing two reliable sureties each in
the like amount (Rs. 20,000 each), to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra J.)
17.10.2025
Ujjwal
