High CourtsSingle Bench

Bipin Chandra Joshi And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 August 2025 · Citation: (2025) 08 UK CK 0602

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420, 467, 468, 471 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 758 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 503 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.17 of 2025, registered at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital.

2.

Heard Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent.

3.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate, submitted on instructions that the applicants and the co-accused Yatendra Sah had taken loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) from the Uttarakhand State Cooperative Bank, Haldwani and mortgaged their properties. Thereafter, they sold some part of the mortgaged property to the informant as disclosed in the First Information Report. He further submitted that the investigation is pending for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4.

Ms. Anmol Sandhu, Advocate, submitted that the applicants had mortgaged a part of their properties. They did not mortgage their entire property. Yatendra Sah, the co-accused of the similar role, has been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Applicants have no criminal antecedents. They are permanent residents of District Nainital, therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding, and, they were granted interim bail on 15.07.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by them.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

6.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and the order dated 15.07.2025, granting interim bail to the applicants, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Bipin Chandra Joshi and Murari Shah, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(iii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iv) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

8.

It is made clear that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.