Single judge bail application where applicant, accused in cheating case regarding non-delivery of a purchased plot, was granted bail citing lack of absconding probability and existing liquidation proceedings.
Applicant released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:9082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
13th OCTOBER, 2025
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1806 of 2025
Kuldeep Nandrajog ..…Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate. (through video conferencing) Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder.
Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
Applicant-Kuldeep Nandrajog is in judicial
custody for the offence punishable under Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No.472 of 2023, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar.
2. The informant Smt. Reeta Tyagi lodged the First Information Report against eight persons including the present applicant on 25.10.2023 alleging that she had invested a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- for a plot with M/S Octagon Builders and Promoters Private Ltd. But, the builder has not yet handed over the plot even after repeated requests.
1
2025:UHC:9082
3. Heard Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brier Holder for respondent.
4. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant was dealt with by Vibhu Vishwabandhu, the director of the company, and the entire responsibility of selling the plot was of Vibhu Vishwabandhu. Applicant had no connection with the sale of the plot to the informant. He had not cheated the informant. He had not received any amount from the informant. The company has gone under liquidation. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Applicant is in custody for a long period. The co-accused has been granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
5 . Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally.
6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the
2
2025:UHC:9082
personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
8. The Bail Application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Kuldeep Nandrajog be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Date: 13.10.2025 Pant/
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant falsely implicated and in custody since several months.
Whether evidence tampering or absconding is a ground to deny bail in the present circumstances.
Kuldeep Nandrajog
State of Uttarakhand
Alok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
