HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 351 of 2024 Jagmohan Singh Bisht ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. First Bail Application No. 348 of 2025 Urmila Bisht ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. The applicants Jagmohan Singh Bisht and Smt. Urmila Bisht are in judicial custody in FIR No. 142 of 2024, under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2016 and Section 3/21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, P.S. Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 4. According to the FIR, the informant deposited certain money in the Loni Urban Multi-State Credit & Thrift Cooperative Society, Branch Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal, on the assurance of high returns, but it was not paid to her. The FIR is named against the co-accused. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that it was a dispute of Rs. 1,98,000/-; the informant has already received the entire money and an agreement has entered into between the parties, which is Annexure 2 to the bail application of the applicant Jagmohan Singh Bisht. It is submitted that this fact has been admitted in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the State. It is also submitted that the applicants are in custody for more than six months now. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that in her statement given to the Investigating Officer, the informant had told that the amount involved is more than Rs. 9 lakhs, which is not paid; as per agreement, it is argued that only Rs. 1,98,000/- has allegedly been paid to the informant. 7. An agreement between the parties, Annexure 2, has been filed in the bail application of the applicant Jagmohan Singh Bisht. It records that the informant has received the entire money. What is the effect of the subsequent statement of the informant with regard to the amount involved will definitely find deliberation during investigation and the trial, as the case may be. 3 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail applications are allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 29.04.2025 Avneet/