Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, others

Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Mr. Prashant Singh, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the Applicants. Mr.Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A, for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two anticipatory bail applications, being connected with Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, are being decided by this common order as they arise out of the same First Information Report dated 02.09.2024 for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in which during investigation, additional Sections 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been invoked.

2. The allegations in the FIR, lodged by Shri Kaustubh Mishra, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rudrapur, are that a sum of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1076 OF 2024 ………..Anil Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others Anticipatory Bail Application No.219 OF 2025 ………..Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. ₹13,51,46,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn on 28.08.2024 and

31.08.2024 from Joint Bank Account No. 201001423472 of CALA USN & PD NHAI NH-74 maintained with IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur, by using three forged cheques bearing nos. 215713, 215714, and

215715. It is alleged that the cheques bore forged signatures and were supported by fabricated documents.

3. It is further alleged that after the fraudulent withdrawals, the funds were transferred into various accounts, including those of entities operating in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Chandigarh, and were thereafter routed through several other accounts. During investigation, the role of multiple accused persons, including the present applicants, came to light.

4. Applicant Anil Kumar Sharma has filed his anticipatory bail application (No. 1076 of 2024) stating that he is a businessman engaged in diamond trading in Mumbai and has been falsely implicated merely on account of having introduced one Mr. Gulshan (proprietor of M/s Sanwariya Traders) to co-accused Ashwin Mali. He submits that he neither received any funds from the alleged fraudulent transactions nor had any role in the operation of the bank accounts in question. It is further averred that he has been cooperating with the investigation and that custodial interrogation is not warranted.

5. Applicant Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender has filed his anticipatory bail application (No. 219 of 2025), stating that he is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offences. He contends that he has been falsely implicated on account of being the brother of co-accused Lalit Kumar, who is already in custody. It is submitted that no incriminating material has Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1076 OF 2024 ………..Anil Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others Anticipatory Bail Application No.219 OF 2025 ………..Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. been recovered from his possession and no amount has been credited to his account.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicants with the preparation or use of the forged cheques, and the allegations are largely based on statements of co-accused persons. They submit that the applicants have deep roots in society, are not at flight risk, and are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre v. State of Maharashtra to contend that anticipatory bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not essential.

8. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the applications, contending that the investigation reveals that Anil Kumar Sharma facilitated the use of the account of M/s Sanwariya Traders, in which a substantial portion of the defrauded funds (₹4,47,56,300/-) were deposited, and thereafter facilitated their diversion.

9. With regard to Applicant Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender, it is alleged that he conspired with co-accused Lalit Kumar and received a part of the siphoned funds in his USDT account. It is argued that custodial interrogation is required to unearth the conspiracy and trace the money trail.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, it is evident that the allegations in the FIR disclose a serious economic offence involving the siphoning of public funds amounting to ₹13.51 crores from a Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1076 OF 2024 ………..Anil Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others Anticipatory Bail Application No.219 OF 2025 ………..Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. government account by using forged cheques. The investigation has so far revealed that a sum of ₹4.47 crores was deposited into the account of M/s Sanwariya Traders, which is linked to Applicant Anil Kumar Sharma, and Applicant Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender allegedly received that part of the siphoned amount in his digital USDT account.

11. At the same time, this Court cannot ignore that the entire case is predominantly based on documentary and digital evidence which is already within the custody of the Investigating Agency or can be retrieved by them through established forensic and cyber protocols. It is not the case of the State that any material evidence is likely to be destroyed by the applicants if granted bail. The applicants are not habitual offenders, have fixed places of residence, and have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

12. The State’s apprehension that the applicants may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses is not unfounded, considering the magnitude of the offence and the financial capacity of the accused persons. However, these apprehensions can be effectively mitigated by imposing strict conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS (old Section 438 Cr.P.C.). It is also pertinent to note that custodial interrogation is not automatically warranted in every economic offence; it must be justified on specific investigative needs, which in the present case have not been demonstrated beyond the general assertion of tracing the money trail.

13. Balancing the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution against the interest of a fair and unhindered investigation, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by taking the applicants into custody, as their custodial interrogation is not Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1076 OF 2024 ………..Anil Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others Anticipatory Bail Application No.219 OF 2025 ………..Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. indispensable for the investigation. The purpose of arrest can be adequately secured by imposing strict bail conditions. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, both applications are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Anil Kumar Sharma and Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender in connection with Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- each with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation as and when required. (ii) The applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (iii) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness in any manner. (iv) The applicants shall share details of all their bank accounts and digital wallets with the Investigating Officer within one week. (v) The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and join the investigation. (vi) The applicants shall not indulge in any similar offence during the pendency of the proceedings. (vii) In case of non-cooperation or violation of any condition, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1076 OF 2024 ………..Anil Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others Anticipatory Bail Application No.219 OF 2025 ………..Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. It is clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding these anticipatory bail applications and shall not prejudice the merits of the case during investigation or trial. Dated: 17.07.2025 NR/ Ashish Naithani, J. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1076 OF 2024 ………..Anil Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others Anticipatory Bail Application No.219 OF 2025 ………..Mehendru Dhiraj Mahender vs State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J.