No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1397 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant, seeking regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 2 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 34 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station – Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Nainital. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the persons, in whose name, the FIR was registered, they were made witnesses by the Police concerned and the applicant was made an accused in the case; that one phone was recovered from him, however, there is no evidence on record to prove that the alleged phone was either registered in applicant’s name or was being used by him; that complainant in his statement has categorically submitted that he has never met or talked with the applicant; and that he has no financial transaction with the applicant. PW-2 Rohit Kumar in his statement has also submitted that though the applicant has registered a firm in the name of PW-2, no financial transactions were made by the applicant. PW-3, Kaushlendra Tripathi, who is the Area Manager of Airtel, has submitted that the EMI number, which was sent to them for verification, does not belong to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that now, since the investigation has been completed, chargesheet has also been submitted and the trial has commenced, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that the Police concerned has allegedly arrested the accused from Jaipur and recovered a mobile phone from his possession, which was allegedly used in the commission of the alleged offence. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the alleged bank accounts or the phone numbers were operated by the applicant or the applicant was the actual beneficiary, 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. 7. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, namely, Chandan Kumar Yadav be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject the following conditions:- “i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any prior permission of the trial Court.” 9. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. (Alok Mahra J.) 14.08.2025 Ujjwal