HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8 of 2025 Jeewan Chandra Pandey ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Present:- Dr. Govin d Singh Latwal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 485 of 2024, under Section 316 (2), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is second anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on 06.01.2025. 4. According to the FIR, the applicant and the co-accused applied for a loan as a partner of M/s Inspiration Services for purchasing a property. The property was verified by the bank and a loan of Rs.3 crores 50 Lakh was advanced to the applicant and the co- accused. When the loan was not repaid, it was revealed that, in fact, the applicant and the co-accused did not ever purchase the property and they deposited title deeds of the property, which were forged and prepared on forged stamp papers. 2 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused Bank employee has already been granted bail in the matter. He would submit that the bank is already in arbitration and the interest of the bank would better be served by recovery of money. No purpose would be served, if the applicant is arrested.FIR has already been much delayed in the matter. The bank officials were more complacit in the matter. They have bigger role to play in the instant case. 6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that, in fact, co-accused Suchi Bhardwaj’s anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the Court, which has also been rejected by the Supreme Court in the month of March, 2025. He would submit that co-accused Bank employee who has been granted anticipatory bail has a different role. The only. role assigned to him was that he had not properly checked the documents. 7. Learned State counsel in addition to it would argued that the applicant is absconding. Non bailable warrants have already been issued against him. 8. Mainly, on the ground of parity, the bail is sought. Parity with the bank employee. In fact, there are specific allegations against the applicant and one Suchi Bhardwaj that they procured the loan based on forged documents. Not only this, they forged the stamp papers also. Co-accused bank employee has been granted anticipatory bail. But, according to the State, the role of the bank employee was that he did not check the documents properly and he was also negligent in the issuance of Non-Encumbrance Certificate. This is not the role of the applicant. It is not a case of parity. 3 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. 10. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.04.2025 Jitendra