2025:UHC:8052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 11th SEPTEMBER, 2025 THIRD BAIL APPLICATION NO.55 of 2025 Kuldeep Nandrajog ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate through video conferencing. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The First Bail Application and the Second Bail Application were dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Applicant-Kuldeep Nandrajog is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No.158 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. 3. According to the First Information Report dated 09.04.2024, the informant Smt. Hemlata Girdhar invested a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven lakh) for 201 square meter plot with M/S Octagon Builders 1 2025:UHC:8052 and Promoters Private Ltd. in the year, 2013. The builder has not handed over the plot to her. The Director Mr. Kuldeep Nandrajog (applicant), Satpal Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi have cheated her. 4. Heard Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent. 5. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant was dealt with by Vibhu Vishwabandhu, the director of the company, and the entire responsibility of selling the plot was of Vibhu Vishwabandhu. Applicant had no connection with the sale of the plot to the informant. He had not cheated the informant. He had not received any amount from the informant. The company has gone under liquidation. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Applicant is in custody for a long period. The co-accused has been granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 6. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant 2 2025:UHC:8052 Government Advocate for respondent, has opposed the bail application orally. 7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Kuldeep Nandrajog be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:11.09.2025 Neha 3 NEHA BISHT Digitally signed by NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8038ee7326b0 8b2d0e018b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB9677068452F32DE6BA 960BFE64D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.09.11 18:30:27 +05'30'