Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3811 (UTT)

RAJESH AGARWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1669/2025 · 2026-01-16

Ashish Naithani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

] SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:576 BA1 No.1669 of 2025 With BA1 No.1640 of 2025 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Arvind Vahistha, learned Senior Counsel (through V.C.) assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the Applicant in BA1 No.1669 of 2025. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA, assisted by Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder and Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The present bail applications have been filed by the applicants, who are in judicial custody in connection with FIR dated 06.08.2025 registered as FIR No.239 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. 5. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants appearing through V.C., Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for the complainant. 6. The matter relates to the sale and purchase of certain lands. 7. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that applicant does not have any concern with the informant and his wife n any manner; applicant is not beneficiary; applicants have criminal history of some cases and they have been granted bail in those cases. 8. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail applications with the contention that there has been a large embezzlement of funds in respect of sale and purchase of land and there are serious allegations levelled against the applicants. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail and their bail applications deserve to be rejected. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstance of the cases, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Accordingly, both the bail applications are rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Vacation Judge 16.01.2026 Arti