HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 44 of 2025 Gore Lal Yadav ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Girveer Chand, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0013 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.1586 of 2024, was rejected on 05.11.2024. 4. According to the FIR, some cheques of Tehsildar Yamkeshwar were deposited and amount withdrawn. The FIR is quite in detail. 5. It has been the case of the State that three bank accounts in the name of Varun Yadav, Kaushal Yadav and 2 Vinod Yadav were opened by the applicant. He affixed his own photographs, and this fact was stated by one witness Ajeet Kumar, who is an employee in the post office. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that Ajeet Kumar had though stated against the applicant during investigation, but in the trial, when examined, he has not stated so. He would argue that except the statement of Ajeet Kumar, there has been no material against the applicant as to who opened the accounts and in whose handwriting those documents were prepared. There is no evidence to that effect. 7. Learned State Counsel would submit that during investigation, Ajeet Kumar, a witness, has supported the prosecution case, but what he had stated during investigation was not narrated by him during trial. She would submit that the police had, in fact, reached the applicant through Ajeet Kumar. 8. It is a 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 proceeding. 3 9. How could it be said that it is the applicant, who opened the account opening form. There may be many ways to do that, by examining the handwriting on the account opening form, etc. or by other evidence. In the instant case, during investigation, according to the prosecution, one employee Ajeet Kumar had stated that he would distribute Daaks to the applicant, which were in the names of other persons, in whose names the accounts were opened by the applicant, but during trial he has not stated so. It is a changed circumstance. 10. 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. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant 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. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.06.2025 Ravi Bisht