Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/165/2026 of MUKESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 15 July 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/165/2026 Mukesh Chandra Gupta --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mukesh Singh
UKHC010017072026
2026:UHC:5869
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/165/2026
Mukesh Chandra Gupta
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
3. Present applicant “Mukesh Chandra Gupta, son of Ram Swaroop Gupta”, is praying for regular bail in reference to FIR dated 03.08.2025 bearing FIR No. 0217 of 2025 registered at Police Station – Doiwala, District – Dehradun, wherein he has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 316 (4), 318, 336 BNS. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 316 (4), 318, 336 and 344 BNS.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was serving as Accountant in Netrika Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. where there was some discrepancy in the accountancy and subsequently, it was resolved and the entire amount which was wrongly credited in the applicant’s account, was refunded and thereafter, applicant resigned from his post, which was accepted by the Company on 30.05.2025. He submits that after more than three months of his resignation, the FIR has been lodged on 30.08.2025 with the allegation that Rs. 86,14,638/- has been misappropriated by the applicant by crediting the same in his account through RTGS / NEFT.
5. It is further argued by the learned counsel UKHC010017072026
2026:UHC:5869 for the applicant that there was some discrepancy in the accountancy and subsequently, it was resolved and the amount has been refunded but the FIR has been lodged after three months of his resignation and without taking into consideration that entire money has been refunded and applicant is no more serving in the Firm the charge sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2025 and he has no previous criminal antecedents and his wife is suffering from cancer and he was also granted short term bail twice but he never misused the same and on completion of term of short term bail, he surrendered.
6. On the other side, learned State Counsel has not disputed that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and charge sheet has already been filed and applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2025.
7. After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 03.08.2025 and charge sheet has already been filed and there is no need for custodial interrogation and his wife is suffering from cancer and he never misused the short term bail, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant “Mukesh Chandra Gupta, son of Ram Swaroop Gupta” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.07.2026 SKS