Judgment Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 12.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory BailApplication No.130 of 2025 Vinay Kumar Bisnoi ......Applicant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for State of Uttarakhand .

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed by the Applicant in connection with FIR No.250 of 2024, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, registered under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2) and 61 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. The gravamen of the allegations is that the Applicant, acting in concert with other individuals, induced the Informant to part with substantial amounts of money and created an impression of lawful ownership over certain immovable property. It is alleged that forged documents were utilised to represent title and that the Informant was deceived into entering a transaction which subsequently resulted in financial loss.

2. The Informant has further alleged that upon discovery of the alleged misrepresentation, he sought clarification and a refund, but the Applicant evaded responsibility. It is also stated that the Applicant had been previously involved in similar transactions which, according to the Informant, reflected a continuing course of conduct amounting to deception.

3. The material collected during the investigation so far includes the FIR, statements under Section 161 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, certain sale-related documents, entries of financial transfers and preliminary technical reports regarding property ownership. The charge sheet is yet to be filed.

4. The Applicant apprehends arrest during the course of investigation and has approached this Court seeking protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, asserting that the allegations are false, fabricated and actuated by personal enmity arising out of a disputed property transaction.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the dispute, at its core, is civil in nature and concerns rival claims pertaining to ownership, transfer and possession of immovable property. It was urged that monetary transfers made by the Informant were voluntary and were part of a commercial transaction that later turned sour. Learned counsel contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly Sections 316 sub-section 2 and 318 sub-section 4 of the BNS, are not attracted in the absence of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

6. It was further submitted that the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation, has deep roots in society, and is neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence. According to learned counsel, custodial interrogation is unnecessary in the facts of the present case as the entire case hinges on documentary material already in the possession of the Investigating Officer.

7. Learned counsel emphasised that the FIR is the outcome of pressure tactics adopted by the Informant to arm-twist the Applicant into accepting terms not agreed upon between the parties. It was also stated that the Applicant has clean antecedents, and any arrest would cause irreparable injury to his reputation, career and livelihood. It was thus prayed that the Applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

8. Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the allegations disclose a systematic, pre-planned and deliberate attempt to mislead the Informant through fabricated documents and false assurances of ownership. It was argued that the material collected so far prima facie indicates that the Applicant induced the Informant with dishonest intention and thereby caused financial loss.

9. Learned AGA further submitted that custodial interrogation is required to trace the flow of funds, to ascertain the involvement of other individuals and to recover ori