SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:571 BA1 No. 1917 of 2025 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant through video conferencing. 2. Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant - Nardeshwar Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Brij Kishore, R/o Village Ward No. 1, Village and Post Rajpur, Jounapur, Police Station Patori, District Samastipur, Bihar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 392 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar, under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Heard Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant through video conferencing, and Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, learned D.A.G. for the State, and perused the record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged the FIR on 03.08.2024 against the Applicant and other co-accused persons associated with Vidyanchal Finlease Private Limited, Branch Roorkee. It is alleged that the Applicant, in collusion with other co-accused persons, committed embezzlement of approximately Rs. 30-40 lakhs by withdrawing money from the ATM cards of investors, subsequently showing them as defaulters, and thereafter failing to return the investors’ money. 6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and is innocent person. It is further submitted that during trial, prosecution witnesses have made several contradictions in their statements, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. It is also submitted that there is no CCTV footage, no eyewitness, and no recovery of ATM cards or alleged money from the possession of the Applicant, and that he has been implicated merely because he was the Manager of the concerned branch. 7. On the other hand, learned D.A.G. for the State has opposed the bail application, contending that at the time of arrest, recovery of 10 ATM cards along with envelopes and SIM cards of different companies was made from the possession of the Applicant. It is further submitted that the trial is in progress and statements of 12 prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the learned Trial Court. All the prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 to PW-12, have specifically supported the prosecution case and have clearly attributed a role to the Applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence has been committed, the role attributed to the Applicant, the recovery made from his possession, and the fact that the trial is in progress with prosecution witnesses having supported the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Applicant at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not affect the merits of the case during trial. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) Vacation Judge 16.01.2026 Shiksha