HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No.1163 of 2024 Mohammad Babar ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0466 of 2024, under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant introduced to the informant to deliver him money in various accounts as suggested by the applicant so that the applicant may give a plot to the informant. According to the FIR, huge amounts were transferred as per direction of the applicant in his account and in the accounts of other persons. But, the plot was never given to the informant. According to the FIR, a total sum of Rs.46 lakhs was paid to the informant. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the FIR, there are many beneficiaries. They have not been apprehend by the police. No arrest warrants have been secured against him. The applicant had taken Rs.9 lakh in his account. It is not a case of cheating in any manner because the applicant had to purchase land from someone and thereafter, sell it to the informant, but since the applicant could not get the land, he could not transfer it. It is argued that the applicant is ready to return Rs.9 lakh; No offence is made out; it is not a case of custodial interrogation. Hence, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that, in fact, the other beneficiaries are not the actual beneficiaries but it is the applicant who induced the informant to deposit amount in their accounts and out of them, three persons Intezar, Banish and Sajid Ali have categorically stated that as soon as the money was deposited in their account by the informant, they returned it to the applicant. 6. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the informant that total Rs.33 lakh were deposited in the account of the applicant. He has produced the account statement. It is also argued that thereafter, a fake 3 agreement was prepared by the applicant which is Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit of the State. 7. Learned counsel for the State would submit that applicant agreed to sale the property but he was not the owner. Non bailable warrants have already been issued against him. 8. It is a case of cheating. The applicant is not the owner of any property. He induced the informant, to give the money in the name of transferring the land, to the informant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the informant that a total Rs.33 lakhs were transferred to the applicant. A bank statement have been filed. The money has admittedly been not returned to the informant. The applicant is not the owner of the any property. Non bailable warrants have already been issued. 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant 10. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 09.01.2025 Ravi