BA1/1326/2025
2026 Latest Caselaw 1968 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/1326/2025 on 16 March, 2026

               Office Notes,
            reports, orders or
             proceedings or
No   Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
              directions and
            Registrar's order
             with Signatures

                                 BA1 No. 1326 of 2025
                                 Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat and Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsels for the applicant.

2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. The applicant - Divyam Bisht, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0270 of 2024, under Sections 420, 471, 467, 468 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, has sought his release on bail.

5. In this case, applicant executed a registered sale deed pertaining 0.032 hectares situated in Khata Khatoni No. 5, Plot No. 157ga, 158ga, 173, 174, 175ka, 175ga, 175gha. The sale deed was executed by the applicant in favour of wife of the complainant; that sale deed was registered on 28.12.2021. In the FIR, it is alleged that when the wife of the complainant moved for mutation of the land purchased by her, then it came to her knowledge that the applicant has already sold the said piece of land to some other person. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the brother-in- law of the complainant Shanti Rawat, wherein, it was stated that applicant purchased the aforesaid land, but, the said land was already sold by the applicant to some other person, due to which, her name could not be mutated and now, the applicant is refusing to return the sale consideration of Shanti Rawat. After calling for the Police report, 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by brother-in-law of Shanti Rawat was dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred a revision, which too was dismissed on 13.09.2024, wherein, both the Courts held that matter relates to civil disputes and the remedy for the parties would lie before the competent Civil Court.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after dismissal of the revision, this FIR has now been lodged by the husband of Shanti Rawat, who was purchaser of the said land. It is further submitted that same cause of action under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed on merits and the revision filed against it has also been dismissed on merits, therefore, the complaint under same set of facts is not maintainable. It is further submitted that applicant is in judicial custody since 02.05.2024. It is also submitted that applicant and Shanti Rawat, purchaser of the said land, are close relatives and there are chances of amicable settlement between them.

7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are similar and once the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been decided on merits, subsequent FIR on the same set of facts is not maintainable.

10. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Alok Mahra J.) 16.03.2026 Ujjwal