Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/232/2026 of MOHIT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/232/2026 Mohit and Another --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned
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.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
ABA/232/2026
Mohit and Another --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Applicants seek anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No. 47 of 2026, registered under Sections 318 (4) and 61(2) of B.N.S, 2023, at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the prosecution, on 15.04.2026, the complainant, Balwant Singh, lodged the present F.I.R. at Police Station Shyampur alleging that, after the death of his son, the applicants, by deceitfully obtaining access to his mobile phone, withdrew a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- from his bank account through UPI transactions during the period from 14.03.2026 to 12.04.2026. It is further alleged that the applicants also stole the complainant's ATM card and PAN card from his car.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there existed an unregistered agreement to sell between applicant no. 2 and the deceased son of the complainant in respect of the purchase of a house. Pursuant thereto, the husband of applicant no. 2 had paid a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- to the deceased. However, since the proposed sale transaction could not materialise, applicant no. 2 and her husband repeatedly requested the complainant to refund the said amount. It is submitted that the complainant thereafter voluntarily transferred the said amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- through UPI to the bank accounts of applicant no. 2 and her husband. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are accepted at their face value, the prosecution story appears inherently improbable, inasmuch as the alleged withdrawals were made over a period of nearly one month, and the complainant claims to have discovered the transactions only thereafter. According to learned counsel, this circumstance itself creates a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. Instructions filed by the Investigating Officer are taken on record.
7. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two reliable sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) The applicants shall not approach any witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.
(iv) The applicants shall deposit their passport with the Investigating Officer. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicants do not have passport, they shall give an undertaking to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 19-06-2026
Shiksha
SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd 40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B528 3D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.06.19 16:01:46 +05'30'