IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

1^st Bail Application No. 953 of 2025

13 August, 2025

Krishananand Jha ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence

Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned

counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned brief holder, for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the Applicant, Krishananand Jha, who is presently in judicial custody since 03.05.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of

IPC.

2. As per the First Information Report dated 16.05.2024 lodged by the complainant, Manpreet Singh, it is alleged that one Yashpal Singh Chauhan, known to the complainant’s father, induced

them with a promise of arranging a visa for Canada in consideration of ₹15,00,000. Believing such representation, the complainant paid money on different occasions to Yashpal Singh, his son Sandeep Chauhan, his daughter-in-law Isha Rana, and to the present Applicant.

3. It is further alleged that Sandeep Chauhan sent the complainant a photograph of a visa, which was later found to be fake upon verification with the Canadian Embassy. Subsequently, another promise was made to procure an Australian visa, which also turned out to be forged.

4. During investigation, statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Bank records were collected which reflected deposits amounting to ₹8,15,000/- into the account of the Applicant. Forged visas of Canada and Australia were also seized during investigation.

5. On the basis of the material collected, a charge sheet has been filed against the Applicant under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC and Section 10/24 of the Immigration Act, while investigation against the remaining co-accused persons is still continuing.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been made a scapegoat in the present case. It was argued that the Applicant is a resident of Ambala, Haryana, where he runs a licensed Common Service Centre (CSC), engaged in routine activities such as Aadhaar registration, PAN card services, GST compliance, and facilitating digital transactions for local residents. The banking transactions shown in the charge sheet are part of this routine activity, and no dishonest intention can be attributed to him.

7. It was further urged that the core allegations of inducement, fraudulent representation, and promise of securing foreign visas are directed against co-accused Yashpal Singh Chauhan, his son Sandeep Chauhan, and daughter-in-law Isha Rana. The Applicant neither made any assurance to the complainant nor approached him with any promise. His role, if any, was limited to receiving money in the course of his professional operations on instructions of the co-

accused.

8. Counsel for the Applicant stressed that the complainant himself has admitted to having a long acquaintance with Yashpal Singh Chauhan, and all the representations emanated from him. Thus, fastening criminal liability upon the Applicant merely because some deposits were made in his account is legally untenable.

9. Learned counsel also highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged acts are said to have taken place in the years 2022 and 2023, whereas the FIR was registered only on 16.05.2024. This unexplained delay casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story and suggests embellishment.

10. It was also contended that there is no recovery from the Applicant, nor any forged visa or document has been directly attributed to him. The visas seized during investigation were not prepared, signed, or supplied by the Applicant. His implication is solely on account of monetary transfers which were carried out in the ordinary course of his CSC