2025:UHC:2735 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No.2572 of 2024 Shahzad Alam …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Presence: Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Shahzad Alam, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 100 of 2024, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution alleges that the applicant received Rs. 2,50,000/—from the informant and his relative, assuring them of employment in a government department. 3. It is stated that Rs. 70,000/– was paid in cash and Rs. 1,80,000/– was transferred through banking channels, including demand drafts. When no employment materialised and the applicant failed to return the amount, the informant approached the local police outpost at Nadehi on 03.12.2023. 4. The matter was initially settled amicably, with the applicant agreeing to repay the amount in installments. However, upon his failure to do so, the present FIR was lodged. Page 1 2025:UHC:2735 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the dispute arises from a private financial transaction that has been given a criminal color. It is submitted that the applicant had taken a personal loan from the informant and his relative for genuine financial needs, supported by cheques and legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 7. It is further submitted that a compromise was executed between the parties on 03.02.2024, duly notarised and witnessed, in relation to an earlier financial dispute, wherein the applicant repaid the entire sum, and the informant agreed to compound the matter. Despite this, the FIR was pursued, allegedly due to external pressure or related proceedings. Additionally, it is argued that the FIR lacks specifics regarding the department in which employment was promised, as well as the date, time, and place of the alleged transaction, raising doubts about the allegations. 8. It is also urged that the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant, who has been in judicial custody since 23.12.2024, is no longer required for custodial interrogation. 9. The case primarily rests on documentary evidence, minimising the risk of tampering or influencing witnesses. 10. Conversely, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant forged appointment letters purportedly from fictitious organisations, "One Health Axis" and "Innovation Technology Research Foundation," which were found to be non-existent upon inquiry. 11. The forged documents were recovered from the applicant, and the financial transaction was part of a fraudulent scheme exploiting the informant’s employment aspirations. Page 2 2025:UHC:2735 12. The charge sheet (No. 561/2024, dated 22.12.2024) contains sufficient material, including bank records and statements under Section 161 CrPC, to substantiate the allegations. The State further expresses apprehension that the applicant, if released, may influence witnesses and derail the trial. 13. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court notes that the applicant has been in judicial custody since December 2024 and that the charge sheet has already been filed. The compromise deed dated 03.02.2024, while pertaining to an earlier dispute and not leading to formal compounding, is a relevant factor indicating an attempt to resolve financial disagreements between the parties. 14. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that a financial dispute already existed between the parties prior to the registration of the present FIR. This fact raises questions as to why the complainant would trust the applicant again for a financial transaction, suggesting that the present case might be a consequence of that prior dispute. 15. The applicant is a first-time offender with no prior criminal history. The prosecution has not demonstrated any overt act suggesting a likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, particularly given that the case primarily relies on documentary evidence. 16. It is also relevant that the informant allegedly approached the local police on 03.12.2023, but the FIR was registered only after the settlement failed. This delay in registration, particularly in a case involving allegedly forged documents and financial fraud, may indicate that the complaint was not spontaneous but an afterthought following a failed financial settlement. ORDER 17. While the gravity of offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC cannot be ignored, it is also pertinent that the trial may take considerable Page 3 2025:UHC:2735 time, and prolonged incarceration at this stage would be unjustified. The presumption of innocence remains operative, and continued detention does not appear necessary to secure justice. In the absence of compelling material to suggest that the applicant’s release would jeopardise the trial or endanger witnesses, a case for bail is made out. 18. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Shahzad Alam, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2024, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (ASHISH NAITHANI, J) Dated:01.04.2025 NR/ Page 4