2025:UHC:2664 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.2374 of 2024 Yashpal Chauhan ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Vipin Painuly, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the applicant, Yashpal Chauhan, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 213 of 2024, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record 3. According to the prosecution, the complainant, a young student from village Patrampur, was defrauded by the applicant and co-accused persons of a sum of ₹15,00,000 on the false pretext of securing a Canadian work visa. The applicant allegedly introduced the complainant to his son, Sandeep Chauhan, and daughter-in-law, Isha Rana (both residing abroad), and facilitated the scheme whereby the complainant parted with crucial documents and money. A portion of the funds was allegedly handed over to the applicant in cash, while the remainder was transferred online to the co-accused. 4. The applicant was arrested from Ambala on 18.09.2024. The charge sheet was filed on 10.11.2024. The applicant’s bail plea 1 before the learned Sessions Judge was rejected on 21.10.2024, leading to the present application before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen with no prior criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated. It was argued that no funds were transferred to his account and that the transaction primarily involved the applicant’s son and others. It was further contended that the applicant has been in custody since September 2024 and poses no flight risk. 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel strongly opposed the bail, submitting that the investigation has revealed a systematic conspiracy, with the applicant playing an initial and active role. Direct cash payments of ₹1,36,000 were allegedly made to the applicant. The remainder of the funds was sent to the co-accused through online transfers. The statements of witnesses and documentary evidence were cited as supporting the prosecution's version. 7. The offence alleged involves cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, with significant sums of money changing hands based on false assurances. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s role in introducing the complainant to the scheme, and the ongoing trial where crucial witnesses are yet to testify, all weigh against the grant of bail at this stage. 8. In State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that courts must consider the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the offence, the risk of tampering with evidence, and other relevant factors when deciding bail applications. 9. Similarly, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, it was held that economic offences, even if not involving public funds, constitute a separate class due to the deep- rooted conspiracies often underlying them, requiring a stricter approach. 10. The role attributed to the applicant is not peripheral. He allegedly exploited personal connections to gain the trust of the complainant’s family, paving the way for the fraud. A direct cash payment strengthens the prima facie case. The presence of international elements adds complexity to the case and requires preserving witness integrity during the trial. 11. While the right to bail is fundamental, it is not absolute. As held in the State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, courts must balance liberty against the need to ensure fair investigation and trial. In the present case, that balance tilts against granting bail at this stage. 12. The applicant’s advanced age and period of incarceration are not overlooked. However, given the stage of the trial, the seriousness of the offence, and the alleged financial loss to the complainant, this Court does not find it a fit case for the grant of bail at this stage. ORDER 13. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the consideration of the present bail application and shall not influence the merits of the case during trial. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.03.2025 NR/