IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1076 of 2024 Anil Kumar Sharma ….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand, & others ….Respondents With ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 219 of 2025 Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender ….Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand ….Respondents Presence Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Mr. Prashant Singh, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the Applicants.

Mr.Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A, for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two anticipatory bail applications, being connected with Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, are being decided by this common order as they arise out of the same First Information Report dated 02.09.2024 for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in which during investigation, additional Sections 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been invoked.

2. The allegations in the FIR, lodged by Shri Kaustubh Mishra, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rudrapur, are that a sum of ₹13,51,46,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn on 28.08.2024 and 31.08.2024 from Joint Bank Account No. 201001423472 of CALA USN & PD NHAI NH-74 maintained with IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur, by using three forged cheques bearing nos. 215713, 215714, and 215715. It is alleged that the cheques bore forged signatures and were supported by fabricated documents.

3. It is further alleged that after the fraudulent withdrawals, the funds were transferred into various accounts, including those of entities operating in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Chandigarh, and were thereafter routed through several other accounts. During the investigation, the role of multiple accused persons, including the present applicants, came to light.

4. Applicant Anil Kumar Sharma has filed his anticipatory bail application (No. 1076 of 2024) stating that he is a businessman engaged in diamond trading in Mumbai and has been falsely implicated merely on account of having introduced one Mr. Gulshan (proprietor of M/s Sanwariya Traders) to co-accused Ashwin Mali. He submits that he neither received any funds from the alleged fraudulent transactions nor had any role in the operation of the bank accounts in question. It is further averred that he has been cooperating with the investigation and that custodial interrogation is not warranted.

5. Applicant Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender has filed his anticipatory bail application (No. 219 of 2025), stating that he is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offences. He contends that he has been falsely implicated on account of being the brother of co-accused Lalit Kumar, who is already in custody. It is submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession and no amount has been credited to his account.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicants with the preparation or use of the forged cheques, and the allegations are largely based on statements of co-accused persons. They submit that the applicants have deep roots in society, are not at flight risk, and are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre v. State of Maharashtra to contend that anticipatory bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not essential.

8. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the applications, contending that the investigation reveals that Anil Kumar Sharma facilitated the use of the account of M/s Sanwariya Traders, in which a substantial portion of the defrauded funds (₹4,47,56,300/-)

were deposited, and thereafter facilitated their diversion.

9. With regard to Applicant Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender, it is alleged that he conspired with co-accused Lalit Ku