High CourtsSingle Bench

Virendra Thapa vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 UK CK 0056

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Bharti Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 367 Of 2023
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

8 paragraphs · 385 words

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

1.

Applicant Virendra Thapa, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.27 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Selaqui, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would refer the statement of the complainant annexed by the prosecution with its counter affidavit (page 13) and would submit that on perusal of this statement, it is evident that the complainant and the applicant/accused have never met each other and the complainant had authorized his nephews, namely, Kamlesh Pandey and Pawan Pandey to sell these properties in dispute; that, the complainant admitted that he had received ₹ 25,00,000/- through his nephews from the present applicant/accused. He would further submit that if at all anybody has been cheated it is the applicant/accused, who even after paying the full amount of the consideration for purchasing of the property in dispute is slammed as accused and put behind the bars; that, if any cheating has been done that might have been done by the nephews of the complainant, who have made other person to impersonate as Chandra Shekher Pandey and forged Aadhar Card of their own uncle i.e. the complainant.

4.

Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, however, he would admit at Bar that as per the case of the prosecution ₹ 25,00,000/- has been paid by the applicant/accused to the complainant for purchase of the property in dispute; that, as per the prosecution evidence the complainant and the present applicant/accused have never met before and the complainant had authorized his nephews, namely, Kamlesh Pandey and Pawan Pandey to sell the property in dispute.

5.

In the circumspection of facts as stated above, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

6.

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

7.

Urgency applications (IA Nos. 1/2 2023) stands disposed of.