IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

1^st Bail Application No.132 of 2025 Devendra Singh ......Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another …..Respondents Presence Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Himanshu Saini, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present bail application is moved on behalf of the Applicant, Devendra Singh, who is in judicial custody since 04.09.2024 in connection with FIR No. 232 of 2024, lodged at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 238, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The FIR was lodged on 02.09.2024 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rudrapur, alleging that a sum of ₹13,51,46,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from a government account maintained by CALA USN and PD NHAI NH-74 at IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur, using three forged cheques bearing numbers 215715, 215714, and 215515. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.

3. During the investigation, it was revealed that the Applicant served as Branch Manager at the relevant bank branch.

4. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Himanshu Saini, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the cheques were first scrutinized and cleared by the Assistant Manager and other staff, who found them to be genuine. The Applicant merely granted routine approval after being so informed.

6. It is also submitted that the Applicant did not personally benefit from the alleged transaction and no funds were transferred to his account or accounts of his family members.

7. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, further argues, learned counsel for the applicant, that the Applicant has no prior criminal history, is a permanent resident of Kashipur, and is unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence. It is also urged that the charge sheet has already been filed, and continued custody is not necessary for further investigation.

8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the Applicant, by misusing his position as Branch Manager, provided unauthorized access to sensitive account details and directly facilitated the clearance of forged cheques. The investigation reveals that the Applicant had accessed government bank accounts unlawfully, and his digital activity logs, CCTV footage, and witness statements support the State’s case.

9. It is further submitted that sufficient material exists to show that the Applicant was a key conspirator in the offence, which involved a well- planned misappropriation of government funds across multiple states. The Investigating Officer has also submitted that a portion of the misappropriated amount was converted into digital currency (USDT), and forensic examination of the Applicant’s devices is pending. The seriousness of the offence and potential threat to the investigation are cited as grounds for opposing bail.

10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The Court has also perused the case diary, charge sheet dated 30.11.2024, CCTV footage certificate, digital audit logs, and the counter affidavits filed by the Investigating Officer. The material has been weighed with due circumspection in the context of the principles governing the grant of bail in economic offences.

11. At the outset, this Court is conscious of the settled principle that economic offences constitute a distinct class of criminal misconduct, often involving a calculated breach of trust and affecting the financial integrity of public institutions. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that economic offences must be dealt