Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11828 (UTT)

NAVEEN KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1826/2024 · 2025-03-06

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1826 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Bhaskar Ch. Joshi, learned AGA with Mr. Vipul Painuly and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned B.Hs. for the State. 3. Applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.723 of 2023 for the offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered with P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail. 4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged by one Mr. Anubhav Kumar who is the real brother of applicant, alleging therein, that the applicant siphoned off money of their deceased father through A.T.M. It is also stated in the FIR that even after the death of father of applicant, two months’ pension was also withdrawn by the applicant. As against the aforesaid submission, it is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that he was looking after his ailing father, and thus, he withdrew money from the ATM from his father’s account; further, out of the said money, he also gave a sum of Rs.4.00 lakh to his real sister. In so far as the contention of withdrawing pension from his father’s account is concerned, it is submitted that the said amount has been deposited by the applicant in the State exchequer. Lastly, applicant is in custody since 22.08.2024 having no criminal history. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application contending that the petitioner had cheated not only his father but the State exchequer as well by preparing a forged death certificate. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the facts narrated in the bail application as also the first information report, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Naveen Kumar be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.03.2025 R.Dang