Devendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand Another

The FIR was lodged on 02.09.2024 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rudrapur, alleging that a sum of ₹13,51,46,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from a government account maintained by CALA USN and PD NHAI NH-74 at IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur, using three forged cheques bearing numbers 215715, 215714, and 215515. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.

3. During the investigation, it was revealed that the Applicant served as Branch Manager at the relevant bank branch. 1st Bail Application No.132 of 2025-----Devendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

4. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Himanshu Saini, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the cheques were first scrutinized and cleared by the Assistant Manager and other staff, who found them to be genuine. The Applicant merely granted routine approval after being so informed.

6. It is also submitted that the Applicant did not personally benefit from the alleged transaction and no funds were transferred to his account or accounts of his family members.

7. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, further argues, learned counsel for the applicant, that the Applicant has no prior criminal history, is a permanent resident of Kashipur, and is unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence. It is also urged that the charge sheet has already been filed, and continued custody is not necessary for further investigation.

8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the Applicant, by misusing his position as Branch Manager, provided unauthorized access to sensitive account details and directly facilitated the clearance of forged cheques. The investigation reveals that the Applicant had accessed government bank accounts unlawfully, and his digital activity logs, CCTV footage, and witness statements support the State’s case.

9. It is further submitted that sufficient material exists to show that the Applicant was a key conspirator in the offence, which involved a well- planned misappropriation of government funds across multiple states. The Investigating Officer has also submitted that a portion of misappropriated amount was converted into digital currency (USDT), and 1st Bail Application No.132 of 2025-----Devendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J. forensic examination of the Applicant’s devices is pending. The seriousness of the offence and potential threat to the investigation are cited as grounds for opposing bail.

10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The Court has also perused the case diary, charge sheet dated 30.11.2024, CCTV footage certificate, digital audit logs, and the counter affidavits filed by the Investigating Officer. The material has been weighed with due circumspection in the context of the principles governing the grant of bail in economic offences.

11. At the outset, this Court is conscious of the settled principle that economic offences constitute a distinct class of criminal misconduct, often involving a calculated breach of trust and affecting the financial integrity of public institutions. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that economic offences must be dealt with firmly, particularly when they involve public funds and are executed through an institutional mechanism. However, the Court also noted that the seriousness of the charge, by itself, cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where other conditions weigh in favour of the accused.

12. In the present case, the charge against the Applicant is that he, being the Branch Manager of the IndusInd Bank, abused his official position and conspired with co-accused Lalit Kumar Mehandru @ Lali in facilitating the fraudulent withdrawal of ₹13.51 crores from a government account maintained by CALA USN and PD NHAI NH-74. The State relies primarily on (i) unauthorized digital access by the Applicant to sensitive account data, (ii) CCTV footage allegedly showing him giving verbal instructions to bank staff, and (iii) the sequence of events leading to clearance of the disputed cheques. 1st Bail Application No.132 of 2025-----Devendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J.

13. The Court notes that the charge sheet has been filed and the essential evidence, including the Applicant’s digital ID logs, CCTV recordings, and statements of bank employees, has been collected and is part of the judicial record. While the State asserts that forensic analysis of the Applicant’s mobile devices and further tracing of funds through digital currencies (USDT) is ongoing, no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that the Applicant has attempted to interfere with such inquiries while in custody.

14. The conduct of the co-accused Priyam Singh, Assistant Manager, is also relevant for comparison. She had initially processed the cheques and was arrested. Still, upon verification of her access logs and witness statements, the Investigating Officer concluded that her actions were based on routine official instructions and not part of the conspiracy. She was released during the investigation under Section 189 of the BNSS. The present Applicant, though allegedly giving instructions from a higher position, is similarly not shown to have forged the instruments himself, nor is there evidence of any personal gain derived by him from the proceeds.

15. The State’s allegation that the Applicant received digital currency (USDT) remains speculative at this stage. While such a possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, no materialdocumentary or digitalevidence has been filed to show any actual transaction or possession of such currency in the Applicant’s name. The mere pendency of forensic reports, without more, cannot justify indefinite incarceration.

16. Importantly, the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody since 04.09.2024. The trial is yet to commence, and considering the number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet, it is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The Applicant is a permanent resident of Kashipur, Uttarakhand, and nothing on record suggests that he 1st Bail Application No.132 of 2025-----Devendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. is a flight risk or would abscond if released on bail. These factors assume weight in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, where it was held that pre-trial detention must not become punitive unless justified by specific risks such as tampering or absconding.

17. The Court also takes note of the Applicant’s undertaking that he is willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, including digital forensics and supplementary proceedings, and will not attempt to contact or influence any witness or co-accused.

18. The material collected during the investigation indicates that the Applicant was present in the branch and granted final approval; however, a holistic appraisal of the charge sheet reveals that the forged cheques were physically processed and handed over for clearing by Assistant Manager Priyam Singh.

19. While showing the Applicant in discussion, the CCTV footage does not conclusively establish that he was aware of the forged nature of the instruments at that time. Prima facie, the entire sequence, including the initial acceptance and marking of the cheques, was initiated at the subordinate level.

20. No direct financial benefit is shown to have accrued to the Applicant, and his involvement, at best, appears to be limited to a possible procedural lapse rather than a core conspiratorial role.

21. In the absence of any overt act of forgery or personal enrichment, the role attributed to the Applicant appears to be tangential and distinguishable from that of the principal accused.

22. Given the totality of circumstances, namely the completion of primary investigation, absence of recovery from the Applicant, lack of prior criminal history, and the possibility of safeguarding the integrity of 1st Bail Application No.132 of 2025-----Devendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 5 Ashish Naithani J. proceedings through stringent conditions, this Court finds it to be a fit case for the grant of bail. ORDER The bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant, Devendra Singh, be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 238, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to adjudicating the present bail application and shall not influence the trial proceedings. Dated:12.06.2025 SB (Ashish Naithani, J) 1st Bail Application No.132 of 2025-----Devendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 6 Ashish Naithani J.