IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

1^st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024

Lokesh Kumar ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. Mukesh Rawat, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, learned

counsel for the applicant.

Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed by the Applicant, Lokesh Kumar, in connection with FIR No. 0265 of 2023, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. On 02.05.2023 at 18:46 hours, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the FIR, lodged by the informant Smt. Surajmukhi @ Sarika, disclose that during revenue proceedings she came to know that her husband’s name had been deleted from the record and replaced by the name

of a purchaser.

2. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that a sale deed had been executed and registered on 07.02.2023 in favour of one Chaman Lal for a stated consideration of ₹3,00,000/-. It was alleged that certain persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy, impersonated her husband Deepak Kumar, and fraudulently executed the sale deed using forged signatures and documents. The informant stated that the offence was committed with the active

involvement of Dharmendra, Pradeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Papu Ram.

The Applicant was arrested on 29.08.2024 and has remained in custody since then. His first bail application was rejected by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, vide order dated 01.10.2024. The record further shows that co-accused Dharmendra, who was also named in the FIR, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 490 of 2024, vide order dated 26.07.2024. The present is the first bail application of the Applicant before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Mukul Rawat, submitted that the present Applicant has been roped in without any credible basis and that his name does not even appear in the FIR. It is urged that the prosecution’s case rests primarily on the allegation that the Applicant’s photograph appears on the impugned sale deed dated 07.02.2023, which was executed in favour of Chaman Lal. According to the learned counsel, this solitary circumstance, even if accepted at its face value, does not establish beyond doubt that the Applicant was the person who executed the document. It is argued that the investigating agency has neither produced the original negatives of the photograph nor subjected the image to forensic analysis to prove its authenticity, thereby rendering it unsafe to rely upon such material at the stage of bail.

4. It was further contended by the counsel of the Applicant that the alleged forged signatures on the sale deed have not been sent for handwriting or forensic comparison, and without such scientific corroboration the allegation that the Applicant forged the signatures of Deepak Kumar is merely speculative. The defence emphasises that the Applicant is not the purchaser of the property, not the seller, and not even an attesting witness to the sale deed. In fact, there is no direct evidence to show his participation in the transaction. The prosecution has also failed to demonstrate that any part of the sale consideration was received by the Applicant; no transfer of money into his bank account has been traced. The allegation of encashment of a cheque of ₹3,00,000/- is denied as incorrect and, in any case, remains unsubstantiated.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the Applicant has been in custody since 29.08.2024, that the charge sheet has already been filed, and therefore further incarceration serves no purpose. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and the Applicant’s continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment in violation of the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. It is also pointed out that co-accu