SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 1141

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
KAPIL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
BA2 300/2022



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Second Bail Application No. 300 of 2022

Kapil Singh

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. along with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief

Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant-Kapil Singh is in judicial custody in

FIR/Case Crime No. 302 of 2021, under Sections 420,

467, 468 & 471 IPC, Police Station Kankhal, District

Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

This is the second bail application. The first

bail application was dismissed in non-prosecution on

24.09.2022.

4.

According to the FIR, the applicant sold the

property to the informant, but subsequently, it was

2

revealed that the property had already been sold to some

other persons. The FIR is quite in detail.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that it is a dispute with regard to boundaries only,

which was settled when an application was filed by the

informant, on which the report was received that

informant had his land at place. Reference has been made

to annexure-6 to the bail application.

6.

It is also argued that, in fact, prior to lodging of

the FIR, in the year 2019, the informant had filed a civil

suit with regard to the property in-dispute, in which he

had obtained an interim injunction order. Reference has

been made to annexure-7, which is copy of the plaint and

annexure-8 the order dated 03.10.2019 of the interim

injunction.

7.

Learned State Counsel would submit that, in

fact, the property was sold on multiple times. The

informant has been cheated and he has stated it

accordingly.

8.

Having considered, this Court is of the view

that it is a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the applicant

deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3

9.

The bail application is allowed.

10.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

09.01.2023

AK

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top