Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/419/2025 of VISHAL SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 June 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010032042025 BA1 No. 419 of 2025 BA1 No. 475 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Mr.
SL.
No.
Date
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010032042025
BA1 No. 419 of 2025
BA1 No. 475 of 2025
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. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Siddhant Manral, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. The applicants of both these bail applications are praying for regular bail in reference to First Information Report dated 27.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 484 of 2024, wherein, both the applicants along with others have been implicated for the offences punishable under sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNSS, 2023.
5. Earlier both the applicants were granted interim bail on 04.06.2025 subjected to this condition that let the applicant may sit with the officials of the bank along with the relevant documents and the bank officials were also directed to examine the record and resolve the dispute.
6. Today, Mr. Manral, who appears for the Bank, submits that several sittings were taken place but the matter could not be resolved.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the parties that the interim bail granted earlier was never been misused and now the trial has already been commenced, therefore, the interim bail granted earlier be made absolute.
8. In such view of the matter and taking into consideration that the trial has already been commenced and the applicant never misused the interim bail granted by this court, the interim bail granted earlier be made absolute.
9. It is made clear that grant of bail will not preclude the bank official to take appropriate action against both the applicants to recover the amount due and they are free to proceed as per law and if the Bank officials ask any cooperation from the applicants, they shall cooperate and comply with the instructions issued by the Bank time to time, failing which, the concerned official of the Bank is free to move an application for recalling the order granting bail.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.06.2026 PR