2025:UHC:7493 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 25th AUGUST, 2025 SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.178 of 2025 Kuldeep Nandrajog ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Goswami, Advocate through video conferencing. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. This is the Second Bail Application in Case Crime No.233 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar under Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The First Bail Application (No.1024 of 2025) was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.06.2025 with liberty to file afresh. 3. According to the First Information Report dated 23.04.2024, the informant Smt. Reeta Arora 1 2025:UHC:7493 invested a sum of Rs.3,84,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Four Thousand) with M/S Octagon Builders and Promoters Private Ltd. for a plot. She paid the said amount on 20.02.2014. Despite the investment and passage of time, she has yet to receive possession of plot. Mr. Kuldeep Nandrajog (applicant), Satpal Nandrajog, Anjali Tyagi, Ravi Rajput, Sheel Gulati and Amit Kumar were involved in this matter. 4. Heard Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent. 5. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant was dealt with by Vibhu Vishwabandhu, the director of the company, and the entire responsibility of selling the plot was of Vibhu Vishwabandhu. Applicant had no connection with the sale of the plot to the informant. He had not cheated the informant. He had not received any amount from the informant. The company has gone under liquidation. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Applicant is in custody for a long period. The co-accused has been granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Applicant is a 2 2025:UHC:7493 permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 6. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent, has opposed the bail application orally. 7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Kuldeep Nandrajog be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and 3 2025:UHC:7493 furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:25.08.2025 Neha 4 NEHA BISHT Digitally signed by NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8038ee7326b08b2d0e018b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB9677068452F32DE6BA960BFE64D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.08.25 17:55:23 +05'30'