I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

11^th DECEMBER, 2025 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2386 of 2025 Kuldeep Nandrajog ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate.

( throu g h vid eo conferencing)

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant-Kuldeep Nandrajog is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No.306 of 2023, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar.

2. According to the First Information Report dated 30.07.2023, the informant Smt. Nivedita Sharma booked a plot on 05.04.2013 and deposited Rs.5,000/-. She was allotted a plot on 18.04.2013. She paid Rs.15,10,850/-, but the sale-deed of her allotted plot was not executed by the applicant and the co-accused Satpal Nandrajog.

3. Heard Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent.

4. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant was dealt with by Vibhu Vishwabandhu, the director of the company, and the entire responsibility of selling the plot was of Vibhu Vishwabandhu. Applicant had no connection with the sale of the plot to the informant. He had not cheated the informant. He had not received any amount from the informant. The company has gone under liquidation. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Applicant is in custody for a long period. He is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent, has opposed the bail application orally.

6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8. The Bail Application is allowed.

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

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date: 11.12.2025 Pant/