Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40 (UTT)

VIKAS KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1177/2025 · 2026-01-22

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1177 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0063 of 2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station - Cyber Crime Dehradun, District Dehradun. 4. According to the FIR, the complainant got cheated by one Mumbai based Online Platform Company IIFLPRO and this platform was operated by a person namely Ankur Kedia, who presented himself as the Chief Investment Officer of IIFL Securities and defrauded the complainant of an amount of Rs. 90 Lakhs. It is further alleged in the FIR that Ankur Kedia asked the complainant to join the group of IIFLPRO, which trades high quality stocks and started sending information relating to stock market. During investigation, the name of the applicant also came into light. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is 26 years of age and he has been falsely implicated in the case; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; that the prosecution failed to produce any independent witness of the alleged recovery; that the applicant has no previous criminal history; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2025; that the chargesheet has been filed in the case and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses; and that all the offences in this case are triable by Magistrate. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely Vikas Kumar, be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) Vacation Judge 22.01.2026 Ujjwal