Allowed

Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Jun 2025BA1/487/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by an accused of embezzling sanctioned drinking water pipeline funds under BNS provisions. Considering submissions of both sides and without commenting on merits, the court held the applicant deserved bail and released him on a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4459

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶4

03^rd JUNE, 2025

¶5

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 487 OF 2025

¶6

Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate with Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A.

¶7

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶8

The applicant – Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and Section 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.7 of 2025, registered at Police Station Reetha Sahib, District Champawat.

¶9

2. According to the First Information Report, a fake proposal was prepared by the present applicant for the re-construction of drinking water pipeline. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh) was sanctioned for the said work. The present applicant and Tilomani Bhatt (named co-accused) embezzled the said

¶10

¶11

2025:UHC:4459 amount in connivance with the employees of the Block Development Office.

¶12

3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the respondent.

¶13

4. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, contended that the total cost of the project was estimated to Rs.1,73,000/-. Since the father of the present applicant was a registered contractor with Block Development Authorities, he was allotted work contract. The entire work was completed by him under the supervision of Project Implementation Unit. The said work i.e. drinking water pipeline repair scheme was approved by the State Disaster Management Fund. After completion of work, the co-accused Diwas Kumar Pandey, the junior engineer, prepared the measurement of the scheme by making technical and physical inspection. The third party verification was also conducted and after duly completion of all the formalities, the cheque of the final bill was issued to the father of the present applicant in the month of January, 2025. The applicant has not embezzled any amount of the said Scheme.

¶14

5 . Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate further submitted that the applicant is not a convicted person. He is a

¶15

¶16

2025:UHC:4459

¶17

permanent resident of District Champawat. The chargesheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The co-accused Diwas Kumar Pandey has already been granted anticipatory bail in Anticipatory Bail Application No.263 of 2025. Applicant was granted interim bail on 21.03.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by him.

¶18

6. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail application.6686.8

¶19

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

¶20

8. The Bail Application is allowed.

¶21

9. Let the applicant – Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt be

¶22

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.

¶23

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶24

Date:03.06.2025

¶25

JKJ/Pant

¶26

Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt 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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Saroj Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rahees Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sahnkar Sahokar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hitesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Trivendra Singh Pokhriyal Vs State of Uttarakhand