Allowed¶8

Jatin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Aug 2025BA1/1350/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed — FIR No. 0061 of 2024, P.S. Jhabrera, District Haridwar — Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 IPC — cheating/forgery of deceased account holder's bank withdrawals — applicant bank peon — charge sheet filed 09.07.2025 — custody since 13.04.2025 — no previous criminal history — no custodial interrogation needed — release on personal bond and two sureties — not a precedent for co-accused — Uttarakhand High Court — Rakesh Thapliyal, J. — BA1/1350/2025 — 2025:UHC:6786.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; applicant Jatin Kumar to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. ¶8

Jatin Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:6786

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1/1350/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. 3. Present applicant Jatin Kumar, s/o Inderpal is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 08.02.2024, bearing FIR No. 0061 of 2024, registered at P.S. Jhabrera District Haridwar which was lodged against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. In this FIR, on completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and, 201 IPC against three persons, namely, Yashpal, R/o Saharanpur, Firoz, R/o Dehradun and the present applicant. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the amount which was withdrawn belongs to the mother of the complainant, who died three months back from the date of withdrawal of the amount. He submits that the mother of the complainant was provided ATM card, and the ATM card was linked with the mobile number of co-accused Yashpal. He submits that the present applicant has no concern with regard to the withdrawal of the amount, and, he is simply serving as a peon in the Punjab National Bank branch at Jhabrere, District Haridwar. He further submits that the applicant was arrested in the said crime only on suspicion on 13.04.2025 and on completion of investigation charge sheet has already been filed on 09.07.2025, therefore, at this juncture there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. He also submits that as per the banking

¶3

2025:UHC:6786

¶4

system the amount can be withdrawn digitally, operated by the biometric system. He also submits that even as per the prosecution, the main persons who are involved in this crime are Yashpal and Firoz and the applicant has no concern with regard to the withdrawal of money. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 5. On the other side, Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that there is a great suspicion on the conduct of the present applicant and after collecting all credible evidence charge sheet has been filed, however, she has not disputed that since charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, and furthermore, the applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that the charge sheet has already been filed and present applicant is languishing in jail since 13.04.2025, and applicant has no previous criminal history this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Jatin Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 9. It is made clear that grant of bail to the present applicant will not be treated as a precedent in respect of other coaccused. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.08.2025 Parul

¶5

2025:UHC:6786

Jatin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Hussain Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanit Alias Sumit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Aditya Alias Sagar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pooja Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yogesh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Tasleem Vs State of Uttarakhand