2025:UHC:11290 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 1 7 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 5 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.2 4 3 9 of 2 0 2 5 Kuldeep Nandrajog ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate through video conferencing. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder. Hon ’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J. Applicant-Kuldeep Nandrajog is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No.210 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. 2 . According to the First Information Report dated 17.04.2024, the informant Mukesh invested a sum of Rs.4,02,424/ -(Rupees Four Lakh two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Four) with M/ S Octagon Builders and Promoters Private Ltd. for a developed plot, but, the builder has not handed over the plot to him yet. 1 2025:UHC:11290 Now, the builder is allotting undeveloped plot. 3 . Heard Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 4 . Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant was dealt with by Vibhu Vishwabandhu, the director of the company, and the entire responsibility of selling the plot was of Vibhu Vishwabandhu. Applicant had no connection with the sale of the plot to the informant. He had not cheated the informant. He had not received any amount from the informant. The company has gone under liquidation. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Applicant is in custody for a long period. He is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5 . Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally. 2 2025:UHC:11290 6 . Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 7 . Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8 . The Bail Application is allowed. 9 . Let the applicant- Kuldeep Nandrajog be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 17.12.2025 Neha 3 NEHA BISHT Digitally signed by NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008 e9a4a8038ee7326b08b2d0e018 b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB9 677068452F32DE6BA960BFE64D 819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.12.17 18:16:54 +05'30'