Uttarakhand High Court
Lalit Kumar Mahendra Alias Lali Alias … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2530 of 2024
Lalit Kumar Mahendra alias Lali alias Shivdass Patil ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)
The applicant has filed the present bail application,
Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lali @ Shivdas Patil, who is currently in
judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 232 of
2024, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham
Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The applicant has been charged under
Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was
arrested on October 15, 2024, and has remained in custody since
then.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant,
Mr D.C.S. Rawat, and learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand,
Mr S.C. Dumka, and has perused the record.
3. The case originates from an FIR lodged by Kaustubh
Mishra, Special Land Acquisition Officer, who alleged large-scale
financial misappropriation involving the fraudulent withdrawal of
government funds. According to the FIR, on August 28, 2024, and
August 31, 2024, an amount of ₹13.51 crores was fraudulently
transferred from an NHAI (National Highways Authority of India)
2
account through three forged cheques bearing numbers 215713,
215714, and 215715.
4. It has been alleged that these cheques were fabricated
using counterfeit signatures and falsified documents, thereby
facilitating the unauthorised withdrawal of funds.
5. The fraudulent transactions were first flagged on 2nd of
September 2024, when a representative of the National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) contacted an office assistant to report
suspicious activity.
6. Upon further inquiry, it was discovered that the original
cheques bearing the exact numbers were still intact in official
records, thereby confirming the forgery and fraud. The complainant
also noted serious lapses in banking protocols, as no prior
verification or notification was undertaken before processing the
cheques.
7. Additionally, suspicions were raised regarding possible
collusion between bank officials and the accused individuals
involved in the fraudulent transactions; although the applicant was
not named in the FIR, his alleged involvement emerged during the
investigation.
8. It is alleged that the applicant played a pivotal role in
orchestrating the fraud, working in coordination with other accused
individuals to forge cheques and ensure their fraudulent clearance.
3
9. It is further alleged that the misappropriated funds were
transferred to multiple accounts in different states, including
Chandigarh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra.
10. The investigation also suggests that the applicant used a
Scorpio vehicle (UK-06BH-1322) while executing the crime and
coordinating with co-accused persons, including bank officials.
Additionally, the applicant has a criminal history and has been
involved in similar financial fraud cases in Gujarat. It has been
brought on record that the applicant is implicated in FIR No.
1/38/2019 (Bhuj, Gujarat) under Sections 406, 420, 114, 34, and
120B IPC, FIR No. 11993006201166/2020 (Gandhidham, Gujarat)
under the Gambling Prevention Act, and FIR No.
RC0292020A0015 (CBI, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) under Sections
120B, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2),
13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
11. It has also been alleged that the applicant frequently
changed his place of residence and was found absconding after the
commission of the present offence.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as his
name does not appear in the FIR, nor is any specific role attributed
to him at the time of lodging the complaint. It is contended that the
state’s case is based entirely on the subsequent investigation,
which, according to the counsel for the applicant, has been
conducted arbitrarily.
4
13. It is further argued that there is no material evidence
linking the applicant to the alleged financial fraud.
14. No handwriting expert’s report confirms his
involvement in forging the cheques, and no misappropriated
amount has been credited to his bank account.
15. The applicant contends that there is no direct
connection between him and the bank officials accused of
facilitating the fraud, and no incriminating recovery has been made
from his possession.
16. The applicant has been in judicial custody since
October 15, 2024, and the counsel argues that his continued
detention serves no purpose as the investigation is substantially
complete.
17. It is also contended that the delay in lodging the FIR
casts doubt on the State’s case, as the alleged fraudulent
transactions took place on the 28th and 31st of August 2024, while
the FIR was only registered on the 2nd of September 2024 without a
proper explanation.
18. Additionally, it is submitted that the applicant has no
prior convictions and is suffering from serious health issues, as
evidenced by his treatment at Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital
and AIIMS, Rishikesh. The applicant claims that he is willing to
abide by any conditions imposed by the Court and that there is no
risk of him absconding or tampering with evidence.
5
19. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application, submitting that the applicant is the main conspirator in
the present case and was actively involved in the fraudulent
misappropriation of ₹13.51 crores from the government account
maintained by NHAI (National Highways Authority of India).
20. It is argued that while the applicant’s name was not
mentioned in the FIR, his direct involvement emerged during the
investigation, which revealed that he played a crucial role in
preparing forged cheques and executing the fraud in coordination
with other accused individuals, including bank officials.
21. The State relies on substantial evidence collected
during the investigation, which includes forged cheques, statements
of key witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and CCTV footage from the bank
premises. The forged cheques, bearing numbers 215713, 215714,
and 215715, were allegedly prepared by the applicant and
fraudulently cleared using counterfeit signatures.
22. The State further contends that the CCTV footage
collected from IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur, shows a suspicious
individual arriving at the bank with a yellow envelope containing
the forged cheques and submitting them for clearance.
Additionally, the footage shows the presence of co-accused bank
manager Devendra Singh, who was inside the bank’s cabin while
the fraudulent transaction was executed.
6
23. It is further submitted that the applicant was using a
Scorpio vehicle (registration no.UK-06BH-1322) at the time of the
offence and allegedly coordinated the fraudulent transaction from a
nearby location.
24. The State asserts that after the fraud was exposed, the
applicant went into hiding and deliberately destroyed crucial
evidence, including his mobile phone and the vehicle used in the
crime. This made it difficult for the investigating agency to recover
further proof. Despite efforts to locate and seize the vehicle, it has
not yet been recovered.
25. The State also highlights that the applicant has a
criminal history and is involved in similar financial fraud cases
registered in Gujarat. He has been named as an accused in:
(1) FIR No. 1/38/2019 (Bhuj, Gujarat) under Sections 406, 420,
114, 34, 120B IPC, involving financial misappropriation.
(2) FIR No. 11993006201166/2020 (Gandhidham, Gujarat)
under the Gambling Prevention Act, indicating his involvement
in illegal financial activities.
(3) FIR No. RC0292020A0015 (CBI, Gandhinagar, Gujarat)
under Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and
Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
related to financial fraud and corruption.
26. The investigation agency also submitted that the
applicant’s permanent residence could not be verified, as he was
found to be staying at different locations, including with his co-
accused, Meenu Bathla. Further verification revealed that the
address mentioned in his passport was incorrect, raising serious
concerns about his likelihood of absconding or tampering with
evidence if released on bail.
7
27. The State has also sought details of his criminal history
from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the report of
which is still awaited.
28. Given the seriousness of the offence, the magnitude of
the financial misappropriation, the applicant’s criminal history, and
the risk of absconding, the State submits that the applicant is not
entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. The State further contends
that granting bail at this stage would obstruct the ongoing
investigation, as key evidence, including the missing vehicle and
the destroyed mobile phone, is yet to be recovered.
29. In view of the overwhelming evidence against the
applicant and the gravity of the allegations, the State prays for the
rejection of the bail application. This Court is mindful of the
serious nature of the allegations against the applicant, particularly
in light of the substantial financial misappropriation amounting to
₹13.51 crores.
30 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held that:
“35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations.”.
31. In the present matter, the evidence on record, including
forged cheques, witness statements, and CCTV footage, prima
facie, establishes the applicant’s involvement in the fraudulent
transactions.
32. Additionally, the applicant has a well-documented
history of financial crimes, as evident from multiple cases
8
registered against him in Gujarat under serious penal provisions,
including those relating to fraud, cheating, conspiracy and
corruption. His habitual involvement in white-collar crimes and his
evasive conduct, changes of residence, and destruction of evidence
strengthen the apprehension that, if released, he will abscond or
tamper with evidence.
33. Upon careful consideration of all aspects, and in the
absence of any cogent grounds warranting the grant of bail, this
Court is of the firm opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be
released at this stage
34. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
04.03.2025
