Allowed

Suraj Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Jun 2025ABA/1151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in an FIR under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for allegedly showing a girl as the applicant's daughter and availing government schemes. Co-applicants were exonerated in investigation. The court allowed the application qua applicant no.1, making interim bail absolute with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail made absolute for applicant no.1 Suraj Singh: personal bond Rs.30,000 with two like sureties, with conditions on attendance, non-tampering, and travel restrictions.

Suraj Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4710

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶4

09^TH JUNE, 2025

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1151 OF 2024

¶6

Suraj Singh and two Others ..... Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Uttarakhand and two Others ..…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Addl. Nos.1 & 2 Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder.

¶10

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶11

This Application has been filed by the

¶12

applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.184 of 2024, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶13

2. As per the First Information Report, the applicant no.1 and the applicant no.2 have wrongly shown a girl, namely Priyanka Prajapati, their daughter and taken benefit of the Government schemes.

¶14

3 . Heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned

¶15

counsel for the applicants and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned

¶16

¶17

2025:UHC:4710 Additional Advocate General for the respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶18

4 . Notice was sent to the respondent no.3. As per the report of the Registry, notice has been served personally on the respondent no.3, but there is no representation on behalf of the respondent no.3.

¶19

5 . Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate submitted that the applicant no.1 had adopted the daughter of Vijay Pal Singh. But, the adoption deed was not registered. Mr. Vijay Pal Singh took back his daughter and now she is residing with her natural father Vijay Pal Singh. The applicants have not taken any benefit of the Government schemes for Priyanka Prajapati.

¶20

6 . Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate further submitted that the applicants are not convicted persons. They are permanent residents of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding. Charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant no.1, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The applicants were granted interim bail on 19.11.2024. The conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by them.

¶21

7 . Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶22

¶23

2025:UHC:4710

¶24

However, he submitted that after the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the applicant no.1-Suraj Singh. The applicant no.2Smt. Vidhya Devi and applicant no.3-Jasveer Singh have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer.

¶25

8. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶26

9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application qua the applicant no.1- Suraj Singh is allowed and the order dated 19.11.2024, granting interim bail to the applicant-Suraj Singh, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant-Suraj Singh, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

¶27

¶28

2025:UHC:4710

¶29

(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶30

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.

¶31

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

¶32

10. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶33

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶34

Dt: 09.06.2025 JKJ/Pant

¶35

Suraj Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Shri Shani Sai Minerals Vs Punjab National Bank

Akram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suryakant Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shankar Chandra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand