No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1989 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. 4. In the present case, an FIR was lodged by Anil Negi, Senior Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank on 20.02.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS, in which, it was alleged that there is an account of Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam, Dehradun in their bank and on 19.12.2024, a Letter No. 2425/RTGS was received in the bank from the Corporation to transfer Rs. 14,03,596/- in the account of one Guddu Kumar Singh, having A/c No. 7696000100045774; that subsequently, on 04.02.2025, the bank received a letter from the Corporation, wherein, it has come into light that on 19.12.2024, an amount of Rs. Rs. 14,03,596/- has been transferred from the account of the Corporation by way of RTGS, in respect of which, no letter was issued by the Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR, but, during investigation, he was arrested on 04.09.2025 only on the ground that during investigation, it was revealed that the mobile number of the applicant was found in CIBIL of Uppendra Kumar; that no money was received from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that neither any test identification parade was done in the case nor any amount was deposited in the account of the applicant and the CCTV photos of the bank also does not identify the applicant. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, which reveals that the mobile number of the applicant was issued to him only on 16.08.2024, whereas, the CIBIL was generated on 16.07.2023. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely Mayank Bhardwaj, be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) Vacation Judge 21.01.2026 Ujjwal