Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11230 (UTT)

PRASHANT SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

ABA/771/2023 · 2025-01-03

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:47 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA No.771 of 2023 With ABA No.894 of 2023 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant, in ABA No.771 of 2023 2. Mr. Basant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant, in ABA No.874 of 2023. 3. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A with Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal, B.H. for the State. 4. Appellants are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.32 of 2017 dated 10.03.2017 registered at Police Station:-Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 511, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 8/9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (S.T. No.2 of 2020), State Vs. Prashant Sharma & others and (S.T. No.2 of 2020), State Vs. Pankaj Sharma & others, pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Nainital. 5. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the said FIR was lodged against as many as 113 accused persons, in respect of same land scam, which is commonly known as ‘N.H. Ghotala in Uttarakhand’. It is further submitted by him that most of the accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court, and many of them have been given anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submitted that this is a case of parity. 6. It is also submitted by both the applicants that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, on interim bail vide order dated 20.09.2023 and 06.10.2023, respectively, therefore, the order should now be made 2025:UHC:47 absolute. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel does not dispute this fact of the case being of parity with those who have already been released on bail or anticipatory bail. Some orders passed by this Court are also annexed by the applicants as annexure no.1 of the rejoinder affidavit filed in the Anticipatory Bail No.771 of 2023. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders dated 20.09.2023 and 06.10.2023, by which the applicants were released on interim anticipatory bail are hereby made absolute. There is no need to file any fresh bail bond as applicants have already been released by executing the sureties and personal bonds to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the following conditions:- (i). Applicants shall attend the court proceedings regularly and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. (iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications stand disposed-off. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.01.2025 SK