Allowed

Padmadut Budhlakoti v. State of Uttarkahand

Uttarakhand HC8 Nov 2021BA1/1314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. allowed bail applications for two accused persons aged over 60 involved in a property-related forgery case, noting their advanced age, lack of criminal history, and prolonged jail stay exceeding seven months.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail by executing one personal bond and furnishing two like sureties acceptable to the Court.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			BA1 No.1314 of 2021 and BA1 No.1527 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah and Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State. Since, both the matters arise from the same FIR, hence, these are taken together and being decided by this common order. Accused–Padmadutt Budhlakoti and Yatish Chandra Budhlakoti have sought their release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 90 of 2020 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, registered at P.S. Bhowali, Distt. Nainital. It is argued that the accused have been falsely implicated; they are languishing in jail since 05.04.2021; there is no criminal history against them; accused Padmadutt Budhlakoti is 75 years old and accused Yatish Chandra Budhlakoti is 60 years old; they are ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail; Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail but fairly submitted that there is no criminal history against them. The accused are languishing in jail since 05.04.2021; admittedly, accused Padmadutt Budhlakoti is about 75 years of age and Yatish Chandra Budhlakoti is about 60 years of age; both the accused are old and infirm; it is the only allegation that they sold out the property related to the informant to the third person without any authority; it will take time to conclude the trial; both the accused have already served more than 7 months in jail; accordingly, without going into merits of the case, it is a fit case for bail at this stage. Accordingly, bail application is allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on executing one personal bond and furnishing

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

BA1 No.1314 of 2021 and BA1 No.1527 of 2021
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah and Mr. B.N.
Maulekhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State.
Since, both the matters arise from the same
FIR, hence, these are taken together and being
decided by this common order.
Accused–Padmadutt Budhlakoti and Yatish
Chandra Budhlakoti have sought their release on
bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 90 of
2020 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471,
120B of IPC, registered at P.S. Bhowali, Distt.
Nainital.
It is argued that the accused have been
falsely implicated; they are languishing in jail
since 05.04.2021; there is no criminal history
against them; accused Padmadutt Budhlakoti is 75
years old and accused Yatish Chandra Budhlakoti
is 60 years old; they are ready to furnish the
sureties and may be granted bail;
Per contra, learned counsel for the State
opposed for bail but fairly submitted that there is
no criminal history against them.
The accused are languishing in jail since
05.04.2021;
admittedly,
accused
Padmadutt
Budhlakoti is about 75 years of age and Yatish
Chandra Budhlakoti is about 60 years of age; both
the accused are old and infirm; it is the only
allegation that they sold out the property related to
the informant to the third person without any
authority; it will take time to conclude the trial;
both the accused have already served more than 7
months in jail; accordingly, without going into
merits of the case, it is a fit case for bail at this
stage.
Accordingly, bail application is allowed and
the applicants are directed to be released on bail
on executing one personal bond and furnishing

two like conc of.	reliable s amount, erned. Pending	ureties by each one of them in the to the satisfaction of the Court application, if any, stands disposed
R. Bisht		(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 08.11.2021

two
like
conc
of.

reliable s
amount,
erned.
Pending

ureties by each one of them in the
to the satisfaction of the Court
application, if any, stands disposed

R. Bisht

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
08.11.2021

Padmadut Budhlakoti v. State of Uttarkahand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmadut Budhlakoti v. State of Uttarkahand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajmer Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ritik Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Major Joydeep Majumdar Vs Smt.Bharti Jaiswal

Major(Now Lt Col) Joydeep Majumdar Vs Smt. Bharti Jaiswal

Dalveer Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand