Harshita Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present Application has been filed by the applicant for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the First Information Report dated 23.03.2025, the informant lodged the FIR against the applicant and five others stating therein that the informant purchased about 21 bigha land through three separate Agreements dated 23.12.2022 from Yogendra Kumar Singh, Kamlendra Singh, the co-accused, and sons of the co-accused Kishan Chand, and Smt. Brijrani, the co-accused and the wife of the co-accused Kishan Chand. The sale consideration was fixed at ₹ three crore. The said deal was done through Chandra Pal, the co-accused. Rupees one crore were transferred through RTGS on 04.04.2022 in the account of Yogendra Kumar Singh and Kamlendra Singh. The rest amount was to be paid by 23.12.2023. A Time Extension Deed was executed on 15.12.2023. But, before the date of execution of sale-deed, the informant came to know that the Yogendra Kumar Singh and Kamlendra Singh had taken a loan on the said land. They showed him the khatauni of the said land at the time of the Agreement, but loan was not mentioned in the Khatauni. A sum of rupees one crore fifty lakh was deposited by the informant in the loan account. The said loan amount was to be deducted from the sale consideration. The informant later came to know that the said land was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent and Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the informant.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant, aged about 24 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Applicant was not the party to the said Agreement dated 23.12.2022 and the Time Extension Deed. There was no role of the applicant in the present matter. She is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of her absconding. She was granted interim bail on 02.06.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by her.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder, for the State and Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the informant have opposed the anticipatory bail application.

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.

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 02.06.2025, granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Km. Harshita Singh, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and she shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

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

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

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

It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon her, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.