Mukesh Chandra Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Delay in filing supplementary affidavit is condoned. Supplementary Affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.2 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.92 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Kankhal, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the informant had purchased a property from one Vishal Upadhyay, but, subsequently, it was revealed that the sale deed was not executed by Vishal Upadhyay, but, by impersonation, some person has executed the sale deed.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not execute the sale deed; the applicant was not a witness to the sale deed; the applicant is not the beneficiary of the transaction of sale.

Learned State Counsel would submit that on the sale deed, the photograph of the applicant has been affixed.

The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to whether the applicant has signed the sale deed? Has any money been deposited in his account, or is there any forensic report to confirm it? The answer is that there is no forensic report, as yet. He also admits that no consideration was transferred in the account of the applicant.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

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.