2 1 . BA] 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:3839 BA1 No.429 of 2026 Kheem Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand BA1 No.431 of 2026 Shankar Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. K.K. Harbola, learned counsel for the Applicants. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present bail applications are filed by the applicants, who are in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.0036 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 351(2), 338 of B.N.S., Police Station Bhowali, District Nainital. 4. According to the FIR the matter relates to transferring of land by impersonation. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant FIR the applicants have not been named nor any specific role has been attributed to them. He submits that applicants have never visited the village where the land in question was situated. He submits that the co-accused and the main accused have already been granted bail by this Court. 6. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that in the Registry and Power of Attorney of the said land photographs of the present applicant were there. He submits that on the basis of the statements recorded till date the role and involvement of the applicants stand disclosed. Thus, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 7. Having heard the rival contention of the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that applicants/accused had illegally and fraudulently prepared the Power of Attorney by impersonation in collusion with other accused persons. Thus, the bail applications of the applicants deserve to be rejected. Accordingly, bail applications are rejected. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 18.05.2026 Arti