State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. Yuvraj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the

connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 232 of 2024, registered at Police Station - Transit Camp, District - Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of the B.N.S. The case arises from allegations of a financial fraud involving the unauthorized withdrawal of ₹13.51 crores from the account of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) maintained with IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur.

2. It is alleged that the amount was withdrawn using three forged cheques bearing numbers 215713, 215714, and 215715, supported by fabricated documentation and processed without prior verification or intimation to NHAI. The FIR was registered on 02.09.2024 following the detection ofsuspicious transactions by the complainant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 1 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

3. Though the Applicant’s name was not initially mentioned in the FIR, his alleged involvement emerged during the investigation. It is alleged that he used a Scorpio vehicle, in coordination with the co-accused bank official, Devendra Singh, and facilitated the submission of forged cheques. The Applicant was arrested on 01.10.2024 and has been in custody since then. He has a criminal history involving financial offences registered in Gujarat, including FIRs at Bhuj and Gandhidham under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and is also named in a CBI case in Gandhinagar.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the State’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and subsequent investigation, and that no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR. It is submitted that the alleged CCTV footage is inadmissible as evidence in the absence of certification under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. No handwriting analysis has been conducted to connect the Applicant with the forged documents, and no misappropriated amount has been recovered from him or traced to his bank accounts. The Applicant further claims to suffer from serious medical ailments, including uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and chronic hepatitis C, requiring treatment from Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital and AIIMS, Rishikesh.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, submitting that the Applicant is the key conspirator who played a central role in orchestrating the fraudulent transaction. The investigation has revealed that he used a vehicle to ferry the person who submitted the forged cheques, interacted with the bank manager before the incident, and subsequently went into hiding. The Applicant allegedly destroyed his mobile phone and the vehicle, thus hindering the investigation. 2 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

7. The State also places reliance on CCTV footage from the bank premises and statements recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S., asserting that the evidence points towards the Applicant’s direct involvement.

8. Furthermore, the Applicant’s history of similar offences in other jurisdictions, along with unverifiable residential addresses and a frequent change of location, raises agenuine concern that he may abscond or tamper with evidence if released on bail.

9. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the case record, this Court proceeds to make the following observations:

10. At the outset, it is necessary to emphasize that the nature and seriousness of the accusations form a key factor in the adjudication of a bail application. In the present matter, the allegations pertain to a meticulously planned and executed financial fraud involving misappropriation of ₹13.51 crores from a government account maintained by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

11. The fraud was committed through the use of forged cheques bearing serial numbers 215713, 215714, and 215715. These cheques were allegedly cleared without any verification against internal records, raising suspicion of collusion between private actors and bank officials.

12. Although the Applicant's name did not surface in the initial FIR, his alleged role came to light during the investigation. Notably, the Applicant is stated to have used a vehicle (Scorpio, registration UK-06BH-1322) during the commission of the crime and was observed interacting with the primary co-accused, Devendra Singh, who was the Branch Manager of IndusInd Bank. Moreover, circumstantial evidence suggests that the Applicant was involved in dropping off the person who submitted the forged cheques for clearance. This is corroborated by CCTV footage, albeit contested by the Applicant on the grounds of lack of certification under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Such 3 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. evidentiary concerns are best addressed during the trial phase and cannot form the basis for discarding the investigation’s findings at this stage.

13. Furthermore, this Court notes with concern that the Applicant has not fully cooperated with the investigation. His mobile phone and vehicle, both crucial in tracing communication and movement,have not been recovered, and it is alleged that these were deliberately destroyed. The Applicant also went missing shortly after the registration of the FIR and was declared absconding. This conduct demonstrates a conscious attempt to obstruct the course of justice. It raises a reasonable apprehension that, if released, the Applicant may again abscond or interfere with evidence and witnesses.

14. The Court also takes into account the Applicant’s prior criminal history, which includes multiple FIRs involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These cases, registered in Gujarat and under investigation by the CBI and local police, reveal a recurring pattern of involvement in economic offences. The gravity of the present charges must be assessed in light of this background. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and serious financial implications for public institutions are to be treated differently when considering bail, especially where there is a credible apprehension of tampering or absconding.

15. The Applicant has relied heavily on his medical condition to press for release. While this Court is not unsympathetic to his health concerns, the medical records placed on record do not suggest any terminal or life- threatening condition that cannot be managed with adequate care in judicial custody. The State has not denied that medical attention is being provided to the Applicant as and when required. Hence, the Applicant’s 4 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. physical ailments do not, at present, constitute a compelling ground for bail.

16. The Court has also considered the argument of parity with co-accused Devendra Singh, who has been granted bail. However, the parameters of parity are not met in the present case. The roles assigned to the Applicant and co-accused are distinct. The Applicant is alleged to have been part of the foundational stages of the conspiracy, with a hands-on role in planning, coordination, and post-offence concealment of evidence. Parity in bail cannot be claimed in isolation without reference to the distinct factual matrix involving each accused.

17. Moreover, investigation is still in progress. Although chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, only one prosecution witness (PW-1) has been examined thus far, while fifteen witnesses remain to be examined. The Applicant’s release at this stage carries a substantial risk of disrupting the smooth progress of the trial. ORDER In view of the totality of circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the Applicant’s role in the conspiracy as revealed during investigation, his prior involvement in similar financial offences, and his conduct during and after the commission of the alleged crime, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. His release would pose a real and substantial risk of absconding, non-cooperation with the trial, and possible tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also finds no new material or substantial change in circumstances from the date of rejection of the earlier bail application that would warrant a departure from the previous order passed by this Court on 04.03.2025. 5 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. Hence, the second bail application is devoid of merit and stands rejected. Dated: 27.06.2025 NR/ Ashish Naithani, J. 6 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.