2025:UHC:3131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1291 of 2024 Diwakar Dutt Raturi …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, Diwakar Dutt Raturi, seeking release in connection with FIR No. 19 of 2022, Police Station Lambgaon, District Tehri Garhwal, registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 418, 466, 468, 120B IPC and Section 103 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 1st September 2022. 2. As per the FIR, the applicant was working as a numerician/clerk at Gramin Bachat Kendra Rauniya, Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Lambgaon since 2010. It is alleged that initially, the applicant worked diligently and gained the trust of account holders in Nyaya Panchayat Rauniya, encouraging more than 500 individuals to open accounts at the savings center. However, beginning in 2011, he allegedly started making 1 2025:UHC:3131 unauthorized withdrawals and misappropriating funds. The investigation reveals embezzlement of approximately ₹24,23,338/- between 2011 and 2021. An FIR was lodged by the Secretary, Rakesh Singh Rana, on 30th July 2022, after detection of discrepancies. The applicant is said to have returned ₹3,80,000/- of the amount, leaving an outstanding of ₹20,43,338/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sheetal Selwal, contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It was submitted that he was merely a temporary clerk with no authority to open accounts or motivate depositors. Responsibility for such acts, according to the defence, lay with the then Secretary, Sundar Singh Kaintura. The applicant denies any personal use of the funds and asserts that the alleged shortfall is the liability of the Secretary. It is further argued that the applicant has been in custody since 01.09.2022, the charge sheet has been filed, and he has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of Tehri Garhwal and not a flight risk. 4. Per contra, learned Brief Holder for the State, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, opposed the bail application. He submitted that the applicant manipulated the trust of illiterate or semi-literate villagers, procuring their thumb impressions or signatures on blank slips and forms, which were misused to effect fraudulent withdrawals or to fabricate false records of deposits. The embezzlement was systematic and protracted. The State also pointed out that the applicant’s partial 2 2025:UHC:3131 repayment of ₹3,80,000/- amounts to a prima facie admission of guilt. 5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of both sides and examined the material on record, including the FIR, charge sheet, statements of witnesses, and the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, rejecting a prior bail application. The primary consideration in bail matters is to balance the individual’s right to liberty with the broader public interest. 6. While the applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the Court must take into account the seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the risk of abscondence. 7. In the present case, the allegations are grave, involving criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery over a sustained period. The applicant, in his role at the Gramin Bachat Kendra, allegedly exploited the confidence of villagers who were unlettered or marginally educated, leading to a misappropriation of over ₹24 lakh over ten years. 8. The submission that the applicant was merely a temporary clerk and bore no responsibility for the financial discrepancies appears untenable. Documentary evidence and witness testimonies indicate his active role in collecting deposits, issuing receipts, and recording entries in the passbooks of account holders. 3 2025:UHC:3131 9. More significantly, the fact that the applicant returned ₹3,80,000/- to the society supports the State’s claim of his direct involvement in the misappropriation. 10. Statements recorded during trial corroborate the State's narrative and the modus operandi misuse of blank forms and fabricated deposit records points toward a premeditated and deceptive scheme. Though it is true that the charge sheet has been filed and evidence collection is over, the seriousness of the charges and their potential impact on the confidence of rural depositors cannot be overlooked. 11. The co-accused, who were released on notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., are charged with lesser roles. The applicant, however, stands identified as the principal wrongdoer with direct and documentary links to the financial fraud. 12. The Supreme Court has consistently observed that while “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” in economic offences affecting a large section of society, courts must exercise caution and diligence. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The application is accordingly rejected. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 17.04.2025 SB 4 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5 aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7 FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.28 11:05:46 +05'30'