Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2053/2025 of RAJESH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 28 November 2025
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2053 of 2025 Rajesh …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble
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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.2053 of 2025 Rajesh
…..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand
….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.127 of 2023, dated 08.05.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, Pappu alias Trilok Chand was found missing from his home in the year 2005 and, thereafter, on 03.07.2005, a missing report was lodged. Subsequently, the informant came to know that his property was declared non-agricultural by an order dated 16.10.2020, when Pappu was still missing and it was done by co-accused Pappu alias Trilok Chand S/o Ram Chandra. Subsequently, the co-accused executed an agreement to sell in favour of Harneet Singh Saluja and the applicant was a witness to it.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a witness only; he is not the beneficiary; he did not receive any money; the person, who executed the agreement to sell was also Pappu, therefore, he became witness.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that, in fact, the applicant was given Rs.65,000/- to be a witness to the agreement to sell and it is not a case of any misconception to the applicant because Pappu alias Trilok Singh, whose missing report was lodged in the year 2005, was the cousin of the applicant.
6. The property of a person, who was missing was intended to be disposed of by the co-accused. The applicant was the witness to the agreement to sell. He knew that the agreement to sell was being executed by impersonation.
7. Having considered this and other attending facts, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to rejected.
8. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.11.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f 54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A 087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.12.01 17:45:40 +05'30'