2026:UHC:2265 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2451/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Sheetal SElwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Juneja Dilawar, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, registered under Sections 61(2), 308(5), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Chalani Police Station Almora, District Almora has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the First Information Report was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that he received a call on his mobile phone from certain persons who represented themselves to be police officials. It was alleged that the caller informed the complainant that his identity documents had been linked to a case of child kidnapping. It is further alleged that the complainant was kept on video call by the said persons since 23.03.2025 and, by extending threats and intimidation, they fraudulently induced him to transfer a total amount of ₹65,66,047/- from the bank accounts of the complainant as well as his sister. 2026:UHC:2265 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and no specific role or overt act has been attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence. According to the prosecution case itself, the name of the applicant surfaced only during the course of investigation and he has been implicated merely on the basis of the confessional statement of the co- accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 7. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.05.2025; that, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences against the applicant; that, the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by the court below and that the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude; that, on these grounds the applicant be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the prayer for bail on the ground that during the course of investigation it has been revealed that out of the total defrauded amount, a sum of ₹4,09,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the present applicant and the said amount was withdrawn by him on the very same day through cheque. It is thus contended that the applicant was actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence and, therefore, he 2026:UHC:2265 does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly the allegations regarding transfer of a substantial amount of the defrauded money to the bank account of the applicant and its immediate withdrawal, this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 10. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) 31.03.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef 900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911 ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.02 11:51:26 +05'30'