Umesh Darmoda v. State Of Uttarakhand

on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 162 of 2024, registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The first bail application, being Bail Application No. 1575 of 2024, was dismissed by this Court Second Bail Application No. 240 of 2025 - Umesh Darmodav vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. vide order dated 27.02.2025. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.06.2024.

2. The case pertains to allegations of large-scale financial fraud arising from a deceitful land transaction, wherein a sum of ₹58,90,000/- was allegedly misappropriated complainant, Madan Singh.

3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and that his involvement has been overstated by the investigating agency. It is contended that the Applicant was merely a mediator or “middleman” between the parties and had no active role in executing the impugned sale deed dated 11.10.2022.

5. It is urged that one Bobby Kumar executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant, and the Applicant was neither a signatory nor a witness to the transaction.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the amount credited to the Applicant’s bank account was not in relation to the alleged fraudulent sale but rather pertained to a separate, legitimate transaction involving his nephew, Pramod Singh Negi. It is also asserted that the Applicant derived no pecuniary benefit from the disputed land deal.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the charge sheet has already been filed; that two prosecution witnesses have been examined; and that the Applicant has remained in judicial custody for over one year Second Bail Application No. 240 of 2025 - Umesh Darmodav vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. and three months in connection with an offence triable by a Magistrate.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the allegations against the Applicant are grave and pertain to a deliberate act of deception and cheating involving substantial monetary loss to the complainant.

9. The learned A.G.A. argues that the Applicant was not merely a passive intermediary but an active participant orchestrating the fraudulent transaction.

10. It is pointed out that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., including those of the complainant Madan Singh, witnesses Chaman Singh, Pramod Singh Negi, and Smt. Ritika Negi clearly establishes that the Applicant induced the complainant into transferring large sums of money on the pretext of facilitating a legitimate land deal.

11. The banking records and account statements on file demonstrate that significant amounts were indeed transferred from the complainant’s family members directly into the Applicant’s bank account.

12. The learned counsel for the State contends that the magnitude of the fraud and the Applicant’s integral role therein necessitate his continued custody, as granting bail at this stage could enable him to influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence, thereby impeding the administration of justice.

13. Upon due consideration, this Court finds allegations levelled against the Applicant are of a serious and Second Bail Application No. 240 of 2025 - Umesh Darmodav vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. aggravated nature involving an economic offence of considerable magnitude. The material collected during the investigation, including bank transaction records and witness statements, reveals prima facie involvement of the Applicant in the fraudulent land deal.

14. The sale deed in question was executed in respect of land not owned by the vendor, and substantial sums of money were obtained from the complainant under false representations. The Applicant’s contention that he was merely a middleman, uninvolved in the execution of the sale deed, does not, at this stage, detract from the material evidence demonstrating his participation in the conspiracy to defraud the complainant.

15. In the present case, the Applicant’s alleged role in inducing the complainant and his family to part with substantial amounts of money, coupled with the documentary evidence establishing direct monetary transfers into his account, cannot be ignored.

16. The argument that the dispute is civil in nature is untenable at this stage, as the evidence reveals elements of mens rea, deceit, and conspiracy that extend beyond the realm of civil breach of contract.

17. This Court also takes note of the fact that the investigation has revealed a well-planned modus operandi involving multiple co-accused persons, thereby necessitating a cautious approach to prevent interference with the trial.

18. Considering the Applicant’s proximity to material witnesses and his involvement in the financial transactions forming the core of the prosecution case, this Court is of the Second Bail Application No. 240 of 2025 - Umesh Darmodav vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. view that there exists a reasonable apprehension that his release on bail may enable him to influence witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

19. The period of custody, by itself, cannot be a determinative factor for the grant of bail when weighed against the gravity and complexity of the offence alleged. The mere filing of the charge sheet does not mitigate the seriousness of the accusations nor lessen the imperative of ensuring an untainted and uninfluenced trial process.

20. Considering the gravity of the accusation, the substantial financial loss involved, the prima facie evidence indicating the Applicant’s active participation in the offence, and the potential risk of interference with the due process of law, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant. ORDER Accordingly, and for the reasons recorded herein, this Court finds no merit in the present bail application. The same is, therefore, rejected. SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822 fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5 283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA (Ashish Naithani, J.)

18.09.2025 Second Bail Application No. 240 of 2025 - Umesh Darmodav vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.