[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Jagmohan Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 351 of 2024
Jagmohan Singh Bisht ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the
applicant.
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.
First Bail Application No. 348 of 2025
Urmila Bisht ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the
applicant.
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these bail applications arise from one and
the same FIR, they are heard together and being decided by this
common order.
2. The applicants Jagmohan Singh Bisht and Smt. Urmila
Bisht are in judicial custody in FIR No. 142 of 2024, under Sections
420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act,
2016 and Section 3/21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Act, 2019, P.S. Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.
They have sought their release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
2
4. According to the FIR, the informant deposited certain
money in the Loni Urban Multi-State Credit & Thrift Cooperative
Society, Branch Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal, on the assurance
of high returns, but it was not paid to her. The FIR is named
against the co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that it
was a dispute of Rs. 1,98,000/-; the informant has already received
the entire money and an agreement has entered into between the
parties, which is Annexure 2 to the bail application of the applicant
Jagmohan Singh Bisht. It is submitted that this fact has been
admitted in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the State. It is also
submitted that the applicants are in custody for more than six
months now.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that in her
statement given to the Investigating Officer, the informant had told
that the amount involved is more than Rs. 9 lakhs, which is not
paid; as per agreement, it is argued that only Rs. 1,98,000/- has
allegedly been paid to the informant.
7. An agreement between the parties, Annexure 2, has
been filed in the bail application of the applicant Jagmohan Singh
Bisht. It records that the informant has received the entire money.
What is the effect of the subsequent statement of the informant
with regard to the amount involved will definitely find deliberation
during investigation and the trial, as the case may be.
3
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a
case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail applications are allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on their executing
a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the
like amount, by each of them, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
29.04.2025
Avneet/
[ad_2]
Source link