Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Anmol Malhotra Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2012)

Home
Uttarakhand HC
2012
Anmol Malhotra Vs State of UttarakhandAnmol Malhotra v. State of Uttarakhand

Allowed

Anmol Malhotra v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Dec 2012BA1/1542/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under a conspiracy and theft case, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant on an individual bond along with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed. Release on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail allowed. Release on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant deserves bail in a case under sections 380 and 411 IPC with allegations of false implication.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The applicant, involved in FIRs under sections 380 and 411 IPC for conspiracy and theft, was in jail. While no opinion was expressed on final merits, considering the plea of false implication and lack of public witness for recovery, the applicant was found deserving of bail. Bail was allowed on an individual bond with two sureties each of a like amount to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Original Jurisdiction

Dated: Nainital: the 3^rd day of December, 2012 First Bail Application No. 1542 of 2012

Criminal Side

Anmol Malhotra S/o Kunal Malhotra R/o Gaziabad Uttar Pradesh

…….Applicant (In Jail)

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

…..Opposite Party

Arising out of F.I.R. No. 201 of 2012 Under Section: 380 and 411 of I.P.C. Police Station: Cantt District: Dehradun

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, Advocate with Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate, present for the applicant.

Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A., present for the State.

Heard.

Applicant– Anmol Malhotra, who is in jail in connection with F.I.R No. 201 of 2012, relating to

2

offences punishable under section 380 and 411 of I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail.

The First Information Report is delayed by a week. It is pleaded on behalf of the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated due to the business rivalry. It is also pointed out that applicant has no criminal history. As to the alleged recovery, it is also pleaded that there is no public witness of the same.

In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail.

Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. Let applicant Anmol Malhotra be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

Dt.03.12.2012 Nahid

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the applicant deserves bail in a case under sections 380 and 411 IPC with allegations of false implication.

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Indian Penal Code380, 411

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Anmol Malhotra

Coram

AI extract

Prafulla C. Pant

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Uttarakhand HC
Decided on: 3 Dec 2012 · December
Registered: 1 Dec 2012
Case no.: BA1/1542/2012
CNR: UKHC010041342012
Topic: Cheating and Forgery
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
Disposal: DISPOSED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Prafulla C. Pant

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
1 Dec 2012
Ram Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand
1 Dec 2012
Sher Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand
1 Dec 2012
Shyam Singh Dhami Vs State of Uttarakhand
3 Dec 2012
Jagdish Chandra Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand
3 Dec 2012
Abdul Rahim Vs State of Uttarakhand
3 Dec 2012

Cite this judgement

Anmol Malhotra v. State of Uttarakhand, BA1/1542/2012 (UK), decided on 3 December 2012.

The High Court of Uttarakhand publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Indian Penal Code380, 411

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Prafulla C. Pant

Parties & counsel