[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Parshant Kalra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 August, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
26TH AUGUST, 2025
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 885 OF 2025
Parshant Kalra ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Vipul Sharma,
Advocate with Mr. Maneesh
Bisht, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma,
Assistant Government
Advocate.
Counsel for the Informant : Mr. Piyush Garg,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This Application has been filed by the applicant –
Parshant Kalra for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.240 of
2025, registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham
Singh Nagar under Sections 323, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,
504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Piyush Garg,
learned counsel for the informant.
3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, submitted that as per
the First Information Report dated 01.08.2025, the
informant is a director of M/s ECO Industries, a Limited
Liability Partnership. Applicant was an ex-director of M/s
ECO Industries (LLP). For the financial years 2014-15, 2015-
2
16 and 2016-17, the applicant in the capacity as a partner
received certain amounts in cash from buyers in lieu of
goods sold by the LLP and did not deposit the same into
LLP’s account. The alleged amount is said to be Rs.2.60
crores out of which only Rs.10.00 lakh was deposited by the
applicant in the account of LLP.
4. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, has opposed the
anticipatory bail application orally and submitted that the
applicant had sent several e-mails to Mr. Devendra Kumar
Sharma, the father of the informant, in which he has
accepted his liability. He admitted through e-mails that he
had to pay Rs.2.50 crores to LLP and one cheque
(No.001226) was misused by the applicant with his wife,
mother and father-in-law.
5. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate further contended
that the applicant resigned and retired from the LLP in the
year, 2021. Until the year, 2025, there was no e-mail,
written communication or any demand from any partner of
LLP. The financial statements of LLP for the assessment
years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20 were
audited by a Chartered Accountant of LLP. The audited
statements do not reflect the alleged amount as cash in
hand or under any other heads of current assets. No partner
of LLP had raised any objection ever on the balance sheets
of LLP.
3
6. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate contended that Mr.
Devendra Kumar Sharma was not a partner in the LLP.
Applicant did not send him any e-mail. The date (in the
month of November, 2017) on the cheque (No.001226) was
a typographical error. A complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is pending before the trial
court. The FIR has been lodged with gross delay and is an
afterthought. Applicant has not committed any
misappropriation. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be
initiated against him. In support of the said submission, Mr.
Vipul Sharma, Advocate has relied upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Velji Raghavji Patel vs. State
of Maharashtra“, AIR 1965 SC 1433.
7. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government
Advocate and Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate have sought three
weeks’ time to file objection to the anticipatory bail
application.
8. Time is granted.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and in the facts and circumstances of the case, as an ad-
interim measure, it is directed that in the event of arrest of
the applicant – Parshant Kalra, he shall be released on
interim bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- and
two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer,
subject to the following conditions:-
4
(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating
Agency and he shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of this case;
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the
previous permission of this Court.
10. List on 18.09.2025 for hearing on the anticipatory
bail application.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Date: 26.08.2025
JKJ/Pant
[ad_2]
Source link