HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.576 of 2025 Jagjeevanram …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Piyush Garg, Mr. Vaibhav Singh and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocates for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.749 of 2024, dated 27.09.2024, under Sections 115(2), 318(4), 333, 351(2), 352, 61(1), 137(2), 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the informant and the applicant entered into an agreement with regard to certain property, which was to be purchased from one third person Shazid. Money was also transferred on 24.07.2024. The FIR records that on 13.09.2024, at 02:45 - 03:30 PM, the applicant along with some other persons 2 entered into the flat of the informant and abused them and threatened him and beaten up the family members. When the daughter of the informant tried to cry, the applicant tried to take her. The FIR is quite in detail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false; earlier an agreement was entered between the informant, applicant and others, thereafter, two other parts of the agreement were executed; when the informant did not pay the money under consideration on time, a notice was given to the informant, thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. He would submit that the incident of 13.09.2024 is totally false; the house of the informant is within a Society, which is covered by CCTV, but Hard Drive of the CCTV footages is taken by the informant from the Security Guard forcibly, which is admitted by the State in its counter affidavit; the CCTV footages have not been given by the informant to the Police; there were two witnesses Yashpal Singh and Sanyogita, who had visited the house of the informant on 13.09.2024 for certain clearance with regard to the property, which they had purchased from the applicant, but the informant did not open his door on that date; the Guard of the Society has also stated that he did not see 3 anything; no local resident has supported the prosecution case, hence it is a case fit for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the informant would submit that the applicant, in fact, pushed her daughter and the applicant wanted to took her away; she in her statement under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has categorically stated so; in that case, charge- sheet has already been filed; it is a case of forgery in the subsequent agreements; the Guard had no occasion to see as to what had happened inside the house; it is argued that, in fact, the applicant has long criminal history. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant would submit that after the incident, the family members of the applicant lodged multiple false FIRs against the informant. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case of tampering of witness also. Hence, it is not a case fit for bail. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that there is categorical evidence against the applicant and witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 4 8. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 9. The dispute between the parties is with regard to some land. In fact, the agreement has not been executed between the land owners and others. As per the agreement, the applicant, informant and others wanted to purchase some property from some other person. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to a notice, which was allegedly given by the applicant to the informant prior to lodging of the FIR. The fact remains that according to the State’s counter affidavit para 22, it is the informant, who visited the Security Room of the Society, where the house of the applicant is situated. They went there with a mechanic and took away the Hard Disk with them and installed a new Hard Disk in place of it. That Hard Disk was never provided to the Investigating Officer. Does it mean that the informant is trying to conceal the evidence? The Guard of the Society has also not supported the prosecution case. 5 11. 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. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.05.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd50 4686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8 EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699 , cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.05.09 16:46:50 +05'30'