Uttarakhand High Court
3 August vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
1st Bail Application No. 953 of 2025
13 August, 2025
Krishananand Jha ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned brief holder, for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by
the Applicant, Krishananand Jha, who is presently in judicial
custody since 03.05.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 213 of
2024, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC.
2. As per the First Information Report dated 16.05.2024
lodged by the complainant, Manpreet Singh, it is alleged that one
Yashpal Singh Chauhan, known to the complainant's father, induced
1
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
them with a promise of arranging a visa for Canada in consideration
of ₹15,00,000. Believing such representation, the complainant paid
money on different occasions to Yashpal Singh, his son Sandeep
Chauhan, his daughter-in-law Isha Rana, and to the present
Applicant.
3. It is further alleged that Sandeep Chauhan sent the
complainant a photograph of a visa, which was later found to be
fake upon verification with the Canadian Embassy. Subsequently,
another promise was made to procure an Australian visa, which also
turned out to be forged.
4. During investigation, statements of the complainant and
witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Bank records
were collected which reflected deposits amounting to ₹8,15,000/-
into the account of the Applicant. Forged visas of Canada and
Australia were also seized during investigation.
5. On the basis of the material collected, a charge sheet has
been filed against the Applicant under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468,
120-B of IPC and Section 10/24 of the Immigration Act, while
investigation against the remaining co-accused persons is still
continuing.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant has been made a scapegoat in the present case. It was
argued that the Applicant is a resident of Ambala, Haryana, where
he runs a licensed Common Service Centre (CSC), engaged in
routine activities such as Aadhaar registration, PAN card services,
GST compliance, and facilitating digital transactions for local
2
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
residents. The banking transactions shown in the charge sheet are
part of this routine activity, and no dishonest intention can be
attributed to him.
7. It was further urged that the core allegations of inducement,
fraudulent representation, and promise of securing foreign visas are
directed against co-accused Yashpal Singh Chauhan, his son
Sandeep Chauhan, and daughter-in-law Isha Rana. The Applicant
neither made any assurance to the complainant nor approached him
with any promise. His role, if any, was limited to receiving money
in the course of his professional operations on instructions of the co-
accused.
8. Counsel for the Applicant stressed that the complainant
himself has admitted to having a long acquaintance with Yashpal
Singh Chauhan, and all the representations emanated from him.
Thus, fastening criminal liability upon the Applicant merely because
some deposits were made in his account is legally untenable.
9. Learned counsel also highlighted the delay in lodging the
FIR. The alleged acts are said to have taken place in the years 2022
and 2023, whereas the FIR was registered only on 16.05.2024. This
unexplained delay casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution story and suggests embellishment.
10. It was also contended that there is no recovery from the
Applicant, nor any forged visa or document has been directly
attributed to him. The visas seized during investigation were not
prepared, signed, or supplied by the Applicant. His implication is
3
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
solely on account of monetary transfers which were carried out in
the ordinary course of his CSC business.
11. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the Applicant has
been in custody since 03.05.2025 and the charge sheet has already
been filed. Hence, no purpose will be served by further detention, as
the Applicant cannot interfere with investigation which has already
concluded. It was prayed that the Applicant be enlarged on bail on
furnishing sureties, as he undertakes not to misuse liberty or tamper
with evidence.
12. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail. It was submitted that the investigation has clearly
established the complicity of the Applicant in the fraudulent visa
racket. It was not a mere case of money being routed through his
account as part of his business, but specific evidence demonstrates
that he was in contact with the complainant and received deposits
directly in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
13. It was pointed out that the complainant, Manpreet Singh,
along with witnesses Jaspal Singh and Kulwant Singh, in their
statements under Section 161 CrPC, have categorically named the
Applicant as a participant in the conspiracy. The complainant has
specifically deposed that Yashpal Singh Chauhan directed him to
meet the Applicant and deposit the money in his account. Pursuant
to this, amounts totalling ₹8,15,000 were transferred on different
dates. These statements directly link the Applicant with the
fraudulent inducement.
4
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
14. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the contention
of delay in lodging the FIR is misconceived. The complainant
initially refrained from legal action owing to his relationship with
Yashpal Singh Chauhan and the repeated assurances made. Only
after being deceived by forged Canadian and Australian visas, and
upon refusal of refund, did the complainant approach the police.
Thus, the delay is sufficiently explained and does not dilute the
prosecution case.
15. It was also contended that the seizure of forged LMIA
letters, PPR letters, and visas of Canada and Australia during
investigation corroborates the allegations of conspiracy and forgery.
The Applicant's role cannot be isolated or compartmentalised when
the evidence demonstrates a chain of events linking him with the
co-accused in perpetrating the fraud.
16. The State further argued that the gravity of the offence
must weigh heavily with this Court. The case involves an organised
visa fraud, affecting the integrity of international travel documents,
and defrauding the complainant of a substantial sum of ₹15,00,000.
Grant of bail at this stage would send a wrong signal and undermine
the deterrent effect of criminal law.
17. It was also emphasised that the Applicant is a resident of
another State (Haryana). If released on bail, there is a strong
apprehension that he may abscond, evade trial, or influence
witnesses, thereby hampering the administration of justice.
5
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
18. Learned State Counsel therefore submitted that,
considering the seriousness of the allegations, the sufficiency of
material collected during investigation, and the potential risk
factors, no case for bail is made out, and the application deserves to
be dismissed.
19. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the
records.
20. The Applicant is facing trial in Case Crime No. 213 of
2024, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, together with Section 10 read
with Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983. The gravity of the
offences alleged requires consideration of the statutory ingredients.
21. Section 420 IPC criminalises cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property, while Section 467 IPC provides
severe punishment for forgery of valuable security or a document
purporting to be a valuable security. Section 468 IPC makes forgery
for the purpose of cheating a distinct and serious offence. Section
471 IPC further criminalises the use of a forged document as
genuine. Section 120-B IPC brings within its fold the conspiracy to
commit any of the aforesaid offences. The alleged act of the
Applicant in receiving amounts directly in his bank account,
coupled with the seizure of forged visas of Canada and Australia,
prima facie satisfies the elements of conspiracy and participation in
the acts of cheating and forgery.
6
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
22. Insofar as the Immigration Act, 1983 is concerned, Section
10 prohibits fraudulent procurement of travel documents, while
Section 24 prescribes penalty for offences committed under the Act.
The production and circulation of forged visas falls squarely within
the ambit of these provisions. The charge sheet submitted against
the Applicant specifically invokes these provisions and is supported
by documentary evidence collected during investigation.
23. The Applicant has emphasised the delay in lodging of the
FIR. It is settled that delay is not fatal if satisfactorily explained. In
the present case, the complainant has consistently stated that owing
to long-standing acquaintance with co-accused Yashpal Singh
Chauhan and repeated assurances, he refrained from immediate
legal recourse. When forged visas were discovered and refund was
refused, the FIR was ultimately lodged. Thus, the delay does not
appear to be fatal at this stage.
24. The argument that the Applicant was only operating a
Common Service Centre and that transactions were routine lacks
force at this stage. The complainant and witnesses, in their
statements under Section 161 CrPC, have specifically stated that
money was deposited into the Applicant's account on the
instructions of Yashpal Singh Chauhan, who introduced him as a
link in the visa procurement process. The bank records substantiate
deposits of ₹8,15,000 in the Applicant's account. The presence of
forged visas recovered during investigation further corroborates the
prosecution version.
7
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
25. The submission that there is no direct recovery from the
Applicant also cannot be accepted as a ground for bail. In offences
of conspiracy and cheating, direct recovery is not a sine qua non;
participation in the transaction chain is sufficient to attract liability
under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC. At this stage, the Court is not
required to weigh evidence as in a trial, but only to ascertain the
existence of a prima facie case.
26. The contention that the Applicant has no previous criminal
antecedents has been noted. However, absence of antecedents alone
cannot be a ground to enlarge an accused on bail where the nature
of the offence is grave, involves forgery of international travel
documents, and defrauding of a citizen of substantial sums of
money.
27. The offences alleged carry serious punishment, particularly
Section 467 IPC, which prescribes imprisonment for life or
imprisonment up to ten years. The Immigration Act provisions also
prescribe stringent penalties. The magnitude of the fraud, the role of
the Applicant in facilitating monetary transfers, and the
documentary evidence collected during investigation indicate a
strong prima facie case against him.
28. Having regard to the seriousness of the accusations, the
material collected during investigation, and the possibility of the
Applicant, being a resident of another State, absconding or
tampering with witnesses, this Court is not inclined to exercise
discretion in favour of granting bail.
8
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7329
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, and considering the
gravity of the allegations, the statutory provisions involved, and the
material collected during investigation, this Court finds no merit in the
present application.
Accordingly, the bail application moved by the Applicant,
Krishananand Jha, is hereby rejected.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dt. 13.08.2025
9
First Bail Application No. 953 of 2025, Krishananand Jha Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.