Ravinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC), seeking release of the applicant, Ravinder Singh Sidhu, who has been in judicial custody since 17.03.2020 in connection with FIR No. 165/2019 registered at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC and Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005.

¶11

The allegations against the applicant are of a 1

¶12

2025:UHC:2548

¶13

serious nature. It is alleged that the applicant, being the CMD of three companies—Kim Future Services Ltd., Kim Infrastructure and Developers Ltd., and Nectar Commercial State Ltd.—in connivance with co-accused Jagmohan Singh (who is yet to be apprehended), induced gullible investors with promises of lucrative returns and thereafter siphoned off large sums of money, estimated to be over ₹2 crore.

¶14

The companies allegedly shut down their operations without settling investor claims, and the applicant subsequently absconded.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has remained in continuous judicial custody for more than four years and eight months since 17.03.2020 and, prior to that, was in custody in a separate matter from 11.10.2018.

¶16

It is emphasised that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences is seven years, and the applicant has already undergone a substantial portion of that term without conclusion of trial.

¶17

It is further submitted that the investigation is complete; the charge sheet was filed as early as July 2021; and most of the evidence is documentary in nature, which has already been seized.

¶18

It is also urged that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, which includes his elderly mother, and that he possesses deep social roots.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the settled principle of law is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception , and relied upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

2

2025:UHC:2548

support thereof.

In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , (2012) 1 SCC 40, it was held that pre-trial detention should not become punitive, and that bail ought not to be denied merely on the ground of seriousness of allegations, especially where there is no apprehension of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.

¶24

Further reliance was placed on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , wherein the Hon’ble Court emphasized the need for a liberal and reformative approach in granting bail, particularly where statutory conditions are satisfied.

¶25

The decision in Hussain &Anr. v. Union of India , (2017) 5 SCC 702 was also cited to highlight that inordinate delay in the trial process is a valid ground for granting bail, as prolonged detention without conclusion of trial may become oppressive and unjust.

¶26

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application, citing the magnitude and gravity of the financial fraud, which affected hundreds of investors across multiple states.

¶27

It was submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents, with similar FIRs registered in Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab. Bank account details linked to the applicant’s companies—such as A/C No. 024005001510 (ICICI Bank, Haldwani) and A/C No. 7515005500000705 (PNB, Amritsar)—have been placed on record as evidence of illegal mobilisation and diversion of funds.

¶28

The Court has perused the record and notes

¶29

3

¶30

2025:UHC:2548

¶31

that eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The trial is proceeding, albeit slowly, and there is no immediate likelihood of its early conclusion.

¶32

While the gravity of the offence weighs against the applicant, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as the presumption of innocence, must be balanced in the present context.

¶33

It is significant that under Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 436A CrPC), an undertrial who has undergone half of the maximum sentence prescribed may be considered for release on bail. The applicant has served nearly five years of custody, which exceeds two-thirds of the maximum sentence of seven years.

¶34

There is no allegation that the applicant failed to cooperate during the investigation. Furthermore, most of the prosecution's case rests on documentary evidence, already collected.

¶35

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra) held that, “The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial by a reasonable amount of bail. The object is neither punitive nor preventative.”

¶36

The principle laid down in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, also supports the proposition that pre-trial incarceration must not result in punishment before conviction, especially where the delay is not attributable to the accused.

¶37

4

¶38

2025:UHC:2548

¶39

In view of the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. In the absence of any material indicating that the applicant is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence, a case for bail is clearly made out.

¶40

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶41

Let the applicant, Ravinder Singh Sidhu, be released on bail in FIR No. 165/2019, Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶42

___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

¶43

Dt: 01.04.2025

¶44

SB

¶45

Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, SHIKSHA ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c2 4b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD BINJOLA 9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.08 17:44:59 +05'30'

¶46

5

Ravinder Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashpal Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yunus Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunil Sindhi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shahzad Alam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mustaq Kadri Vs State of Uttarakhand