HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.793 of 2025 Jahid ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for the applicant through video conferencing. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 04 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 419 IPC, Police Station Piran Kaliyar, 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 land belonging to the informant was sold by the applicant by forging the signatures of the informant and placing his photograph on it. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is the informant who had sought permission to sell the land from the Additional District Magistrate and the time was further extended. In the FIR itself, it is stated that in the sale deed the photograph of the informant was affixed and so was the statement given by the learned State counsel on 28.11.2022, when the bail application of the co-accused Moolraj was decided. He submits that a suit for cancellation of sale deed has already been filed. There is no Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) report to confirm that it is the applicant 2 who had signed the sale deed. He would refer to the statement of the Sub-Registrar to argued that, in fact, while registering the sale deed, the photographs annexed were verified from Aadhar Card also. 5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the photograph of the informant was misused. The informant did not execute the sale deed. 6. Learned State counsel admits that the photograph of the applicant was affixed on the sale deed, but she submits that the FSL report is yet to be verified with regard to the signature on the sale deed. 7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 8. It is admitted in the FIR itself that the informant had sought permission to sell the land and the time was further extended also. The FIR records that the photograph on the sale deed was that of the informant. What is being argued is that the sale deed was executed by impersonation. As of now, admittedly, there are oral statements. The FSL report has yet not been received. The applicant is in custody for more than seven months. It is also admitted the suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 3 11. Let the applicant be released 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. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 27.11.2025 Jitendra