2025:UHC:6096 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 14.07.2025 BA1/1924/2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. R.S. Sammal along with Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipushmola Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Applicant-Sachin Sharma, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 348 of 2024, under Sections 111, 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that the applicant runs a personal banking company in which the complainant and other investors had deposited money. However, when the complainant approached the applicant for return of his money, the applicant was found to be absconding. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 316(2) and 318 (4) of B.N.S. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It is also pointed out that although the chargesheet lists 42 prosecution witnesses but not a single witness has been examined so far, and the applicant is in custody since 16.08.2025. 8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that the complainant, along with other investors, deposited 2025:UHC:6096 money on the representation made by the applicant that his banking company was recognized by the Reserve Bank of India and the State Government of Uttarakhand, and that even the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India had appreciated his company. 9. To this, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that if the applicant granted bail by this Court, he is willing to settle and return the invested amounts to the complainant and other depositors. It is contended that the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) B.N.S. are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum sentence of five years. 10. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application contending that there is a likelihood of the applicant absconding if he released on bail. However, learned State counsel would fairly admit that no prosecution witness has been examined in the trial court till date. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, particularly in light of the pendency of trial and prolonged incarceration. The applicant undertakes to surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer and to cooperate fully with the trial proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Sachin Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 14. The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of the concerned Police Station shall ensure that the applicant deposits his passport, which shall be kept in safe custody until further orders. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 14.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6096