Allowed

Neetesh Srivastava v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Sept 2023BA1/559/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari granted regular bail to the applicant, Neetesh Srivastava, charged under IPC Sections 420, 406, 409 and the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors Act. The court noted that offences were alleged to have been committed prior to his appointment as Chairman of a cooperative society.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of like amount.

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.559 of 2023
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
(1) Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for
the applicant.

(2) Mr.
Rakesh
Kumar
Joshi,
Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

(3) Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
parties.

(4) This is first application moved by
the applicant seeking regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 205 of 2019
under Section 420, 406 & 409 of I.P.C.
and Section 3 of Uttarakhand Protection
of Interests of Depositors (In Financial
Establishment)
Act,
2005,
registered
before Police Station Haldwani, District
Nainital.
(5) Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant has falsely been
implicated in the instant crime and he is
languishing in jail since 09.06.2019;
applicant was elected as Chairman of
Annantnidhi Credit Co-operative Society
Ltd. on 23.04.2018 and the offences
alleged to have been committed are prior
to his appointment as Chairman. It is
further contended that offence under the
Uttarakhand Protection of Interest of
Depositors (In Financial Establishment)
Act, 2005 is not made out as the Multi
State Cooperative Society does not come
within
the
definition
of
“Financial
Establishment”, as defined under Section
2 (c) of the Act. It is further contended
that themoney collectedfromdepositors

is with the cooperative society and not a
single penny has gone to the personal account of the applicant. It is further contended that once released on bail, the applicant will ensure that claims of all the depositors are settled.
(6) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that all the offences are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, applicant is entitled to bail in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil.
(7) Learned State Counsel, however, contended that the account, in which the funds of the society were credited, was operated single handedly by the applicant. It is further contended that applicant has cheated gullible investors and then ran away and there are eight
similar cases pending against the applicant in State of Uttarakhand.
(8) Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and
without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of
the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage.
(9) Let the applicant, namely, Neetesh
Srivastava, be released on bail, on
executing personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties, each of like
amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned, subject to following conditions: - a. The applicant will scrupulously
comply with the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by him.

is with the cooperative society and not a

single penny has gone to the personal
account of the applicant. It is further
contended that once released on bail,
the applicant will ensure that claims of
all the depositors are settled.

(6) Learned counsel for the applicant
contended that all the offences are
punishable for less than seven years,
therefore, applicant is entitled to bail in
view of the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil.

(7) Learned State Counsel, however,
contended that the account, in which the
funds of the society were credited, was
operated
single
handedly
by
the
applicant. It is further contended that
applicant has cheated gullible investors
and then ran away and there are eight

similar
cases
pending
against
the
applicant in State of Uttarakhand.

(8) Considering
the
submission
of
learned counsel for the parties and

without expressing any opinion as to the
final merits of the case, this Court is of

the view that applicant deserves bail at
this stage.

(9) Let the applicant, namely, Neetesh

Srivastava, be released on bail, on

executing personal bond and furnishing

two
reliable
sureties,
each
of
like

amount, to the satisfaction of Court

concerned,
subject
to
following
conditions: -
a. The
applicant
will
scrupulously

comply
with
the
terms
and

conditions of the bond executed by
him.

b. c.	The applicant will cooperate in the trial. Applicant shall not commit an
d. e.	offence similar to the offence of which he is accused. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournment during the trial. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
f.	case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer, as the case may be. The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. He shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. If he does not have passport, then he shall give undertaking to the effect, in the form of an affidavit.
R.Bisht/	( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 01.09.2023

b.
c.

The applicant will cooperate in the
trial.
Applicant
shall
not
commit
an

d.
e.

offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused.
The
applicant
will
not
seek
unnecessary
adjournment
during
the trial.
The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the

case, so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or
to any Police Officer, as the case
may be.
The applicant will not leave India
without prior permission of the trial
Court. He shall deposit his passport,
if any, with the trial Court. If he
does not have passport, then he
shall give undertaking to the effect,
in the form of an affidavit.

R.Bisht/

( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
01.09.2023

Neetesh Srivastava v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetesh Srivastava v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Irrigation, Dehradun. Vs Sahdev Singh

Azam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Kumar Kushwaha Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Veerawati Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ikramuddin Vs Haseen Warsi