ABA/13/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 2383 UK

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2383 UK
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

ABA/13/2026 on 25 March, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

SL.           Office Notes,
No.   Date   reports, orders
             or proceedings                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
              or directions
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               ABA No. 13 of 2026
                               Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. along for the State.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant Ishan Prakash S/o Neeraj Kumar Gupta praying for anticipatory bail in relation to FIR dated 15.01.2020 bearing FIR No.0011 of 2020, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun,wherein he has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC, 1860.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer which is evident from the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and in fact some of the officers of the finance company were implicated. He submits that during investigation all the officers of the finance company have been exonerated and the present applicant who was not named in the FIR has been charge sheeted and penal provision i.e. Section 120-B IPC has been dropped. He submits that the sale deed of the complainant was mortgage with the finance company against the loan advanced to the applicant and subsequently the respondent/complainant the sister of the applicant alleged that by forging her signature her sale deed which was in the custody of the present applicant was kept in mortgage against a loan advanced to the applicant. He submits that though as per the forensic report the signature of the complainant was found forged on the document but in fact no sample of signature of the applicant was taken by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that during investigation, the applicant always cooperated with the investigation and now the charge sheet has been filed and the cognizance has been taken, therefore, still as on date there is an apprehension of arrest. He also submits that the proceedings have been challenged in an application moved under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 wherein though there is no stay but the same is pending before this Court. He submits that in fact the applicant want to face the trial, however, since there is an apprehension of arrest he may granted anticipatory bail.

5. Mr. Himanshu Sain, the learned A.G.A. submits that after collecting all credible evidences the charge sheet has been filed and all arguments as advanced by the Mr. Kothari, are the subject matter of trial and this aspect cannot be looked into while considering the anticipatory bail application. He also fairly submits that the applicant always cooperate with the investigation and now at this juncture no further interrogation is required since the investigation has already been completed and now the trial has commenced.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for anticipatory bail.

7. In such view of the matter, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed and the applicant be remain on anticipatory bail subject his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -