2025:UHC:8687 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/183/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Chandramauli Sah, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 05.04.2025 after taking into consideration that two cases have been registered against the applicant in Rohtak and Ambala and nature of the offences are similar. 4. Present applicant “Nitesh Kumar, son of Baliram Jha” is seeking regular bail in relation to FIR dated 13.04.2021 bearing FIR No. 23 of 2021, Police Station – Hindolakhal, District – Tehri Garhwal wherein four persons namely Karan Singhania, Vivek Rai, Kamlesh and Raju Patel were implicated for the offence punishable under Sections 420 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 120B IPC and under Section 66D of the IT Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet has been filed and trial has already commenced and uptil date, five prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and applicant is languishing in jail since 05.07.2024. He further submits that in the two cases registered in Rohtak and Ambala, applicant has already been enlarged on bail. 6. On the other side, learned A.G.A. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, have not disputed this fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 05.07.2024 and trial has already commenced. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that in the two cases registered in Rohtak and Ambala, applicant has already been enlarged on bail and the applicant is languishing 2025:UHC:8687 in jail since 05.07.2024 in the present case and trial has already commenced, therefore, there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the second bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant “Nitesh Kumar, son of Baliram Jha” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. It is made clear that after being released on bail, applicant shall join the trial proceedings on each and every date and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the applicant. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 25.09.2025 SKS 2025:UHC:8687