Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2549/2025 of JEEVAN CHANDRA PANDEY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 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 BA1/2549/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant.
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/2549/2025
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, learned counsel with Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Siddhant Manral, learned counsel for the Bank/complainant.
4. Present applicant Jeevan Chandra Pandey, S/o Kaustuba Pandey is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 27.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 0485 of 2024 registered at P.S. Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar wherein the present applicant has been implicated along with one Smt. Shuchi Bhardwaj for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS 2023 and on completion of investigation the applicant has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and charge sheet has already been filed and the trial has been commenced and the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.10.2025. He further submits that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.
6. On the other side, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State have not disputed that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and the applicant deserves benefit of parity.
7. Mr. Siddhant Manral, learned counsel who is appearing for the Bank have not disputed the issue of parity since other co- accused have already been enlarged on bail, however, he submits that there are huge pending dues against the applicant towards bank, therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail there may be possibility that he will not clear the dues, therefore, in such an eventuality, a condition may be stipulated in the order granting bail that after being released on bail the applicant shall sit with the bank official as and when required to settle the dispute with the bank.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail and furthermore trial is already commenced, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail.
9. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant Jeevan Chandra Pandey be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicant is directed to follow the instructions of the Bank and assist the bank official in order to settle the issues failing which the Bank is free to apprise this Court by moving an application.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
17.06.2026 Parul