Allowed

Suryakant Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Jun 2025ABA/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a forgery case concerning forged fire police and pollution department no objection certificates. Interim bail was already granted. The court allowed the application, making the interim bail absolute with conditions including cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim bail order dated 29.04.2025 made absolute on personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions.

Suryakant Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4709

¶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. 6 OF 2025

¶6

Suryakant Tyagi ..... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Kholia, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder. Counsel for the Informant : Mr. Gaurav Singh Advocate (through video conferencing).

¶10

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶11

This Application has been filed by the applicant-Suryakant Tyagi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 505 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 351(2) and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

2. According to the First Information Report dated 15.12.2024, the applicant took Rs.13,49,000/- from the informant and gave him no objection certificates of the fire police and pollution department. The said no objection certificates were forged.

¶13

3 . Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned

¶14

¶15

2025:UHC:4709

¶16

Additional Advocate General for the respondent and Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

¶17

4. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, contended that the applicant is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. He was granted interim bail on 29.04.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by him.

¶18

5. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, submitted that the present applicant sent copies of the forged certificates from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the informant.

¶19

6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General,

¶20

has opposed the anticipatory bail application. However, he submitted that the Investigating Officer has not yet found any forged certificates from the informant’s mobile phone.

¶21

7. 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.

¶22

¶23

2025:UHC:4709

¶24

8. 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 is allowed and the order dated 29.04.2025, granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Suryakant Tyagi, 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:-

¶25

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶26

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

9. 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.

¶30

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶31

Dt: 09.06.2025 Shiv/

¶32

Suryakant Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakant Tyagi 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

Suraj Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shankar Chandra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand