Lokesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Kumar, in connection with FIR No. 0265 of 2023, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. On 02.05.2023 at 18:46 hours, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the FIR, lodged by the informant Smt. Surajmukhi @ Sarika, disclose that during revenue proceedings she came to know that her husband’s name had been deleted from the record and replaced by the name of a purchaser.

2. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that a sale deed had been executed and registered on 07.02.2023 in favour of one Chaman Lal for a stated consideration of ₹3,00,000/-. It was alleged that certain persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy, impersonated her husband Deepak Kumar, and fraudulently executed the sale deed using forged signatures and documents. The informant stated that the offence was committed with the active involvement of Dharmendra, Pradeep Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Papu Ram. 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. The Applicant was arrested on 29.08.2024 and has remained in custody since then. His first bail application was rejected by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, vide order dated 01.10.2024. The record further shows that co-accused Dharmendra, who was also named in the FIR, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 490 of 2024, vide order dated 26.07.2024. The present is the first bail application of the Applicant before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Mukul Rawat, submitted that the present Applicant has been roped in without any credible basis and that his name does not even appear in the FIR. It is urged that the prosecution’s case rests primarily on the allegation that the Applicant’s photograph appears on the impugned sale deed dated 07.02.2023, which was executed in favour of Chaman Lal. According to the learned counsel, this solitary circumstance, even if accepted at its face value, does not establish beyond doubt that the Applicant was the person who executed the document. It is argued that the investigating agency has neither produced the original negatives of the photograph nor subjected the image to forensic analysis to prove its authenticity, thereby rendering it unsafe to rely upon such material at the stage of bail.

4. It was further contended by the counsel of the Applicant that the alleged forged signatures on the sale deed have not been sent for handwriting or forensic comparison, and without such scientific corroboration the allegation that the Applicant forged the signatures of Deepak Kumar is merely speculative. The defence emphasises that the Applicant is not the purchaser of the property, not the seller, and not even an attesting witness to the sale deed. In fact, there is no direct evidence to show his participation in 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. the transaction. The prosecution has also failed to demonstrate that any part of the sale consideration was received by the Applicant; no transfer of money into his bank account has been traced. The allegation of encashment of a cheque of ₹3,00,000/- is denied as incorrect and, in any case, remains unsubstantiated.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the Applicant has been in custody since 29.08.2024, that the charge sheet has already been filed, and therefore further incarceration serves no purpose. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and the Applicant’s continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment in violation of the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. It is also pointed out that co-accused Dharmendra, who was specifically named in the FIR, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 490 of 2024 vide order dated 26.07.2024. The Applicant’s case, it is urged, stands on an equal if not a better footing, and principles of parity require that he too be granted the same relief.

7. In sum, learned counsel for the Applicant asserts that the Applicant has no role in the execution of the impugned sale deed, that the evidence against him is at best weak and circumstantial, that he has already undergone 7 month in custody, that investigation is complete, and that he is ready to cooperate with the trial. It is prayed that he be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, Shri S.C. Dumka, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, opposed the bail application and submitted that the investigation 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. has revealed direct involvement of the Applicant in the commission of the offence. It was argued that the Applicant personated himself as Deepak Kumar and executed the sale deed dated 07.02.2023, thereby fraudulently transferring the land belonging to the complainant’s husband.

9. Learned A.G.A. referred to the statements of the complainant, Chaman Lal, Mobin, Momin, Irfan and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which implicate the Applicant as the person who impersonated Deepak Kumar. It was further contended that the Applicant not only executed the sale deed but also received consideration, including a cheque of ₹3,00,000/- from Mobin, which he encashed at Punjab National Bank, Sikandarpur. Photographs of the Applicant at the bank counter while cashing the said cheque have been brought on record, and the sale deed itself bears his photograph, signature and thumb impression. According to the State Counsel, such evidence clearly establishes the Applicant’s complicity.

10. The offences alleged are of grave nature, involving forgery of valuable security and conspiracy, which undermine public confidence in property transactions. It was lastly submitted that the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Roorkee, has already rejected the bail application of the Applicant by a reasoned order dated 01.10.2024, and there is no change in circumstance to justify grant of bail.

11. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

12. The case at hand, as borne out from the FIR dated 02.05.2023 and the charge sheet submitted thereafter, is that the complainant’s husband, Deepak 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. Kumar, was impersonated by certain individuals who executed a forged sale deed dated 07.02.2023 in favour of one Chaman Lal for a consideration of ₹3,00,000/-. The Applicant, though not named in the FIR, is alleged during investigation to have impersonated Deepak Kumar, affixed his photograph on the impugned document, and encashed a cheque of ₹3,00,000/- said to be part of the consideration. The prosecution has relied on statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, Chaman Lal, Mobin, Momin, Irfan, and others, as well as certain photographs purportedly showing the Applicant at a bank counter while cashing the said cheque.

13. Undoubtedly, the allegations are grave in nature, involving forgery of a valuable security, impersonation, and conspiracy to deprive a citizen of her immovable property. Such offences not only affect the immediate victim but also strike at the faith of society in property transactions, and therefore require strict scrutiny at trial. However, at the stage of considering bail, this Court is not called upon to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the Applicant, but rather to assess whether the material available necessitates his continued incarceration pending trial.

14. On this aspect, several considerations assume importance. Firstly, the Applicant was not named in the FIR, and his role has surfaced only upon subsequent investigation. His alleged complicity rests largely on the presence of his photograph on the sale deed and the allegation of encashment of one cheque. The evidentiary value of such material will have to be tested in the course of trial through proper examination and cross-examination, and cannot be treated as conclusive at this stage. 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.

15. Secondly, while the State asserts that the Applicant encashed a cheque of ₹3,00,000/-, it is not shown that any further monetary gain or consideration has passed into his account. The defence plea that no money trail directly links the Applicant to the impugned transaction cannot be brushed aside. Thirdly, the Applicant has remained in custody since 29.08.2024. The investigation is complete and a charge sheet has been filed. It is not the case of the prosecution that his further custodial interrogation is required. Thus, his continued detention would not advance the cause of investigation, but would amount to punitive pre-trial incarceration.

16. The Court is also mindful of the constitutional scheme and the settled principles governing bail. In SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court reiterated that personal liberty is a fundamental right and must not be curtailed save in exceptional cases. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, it was observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until guilt is established, and that pre-trial detention ought not to be prolonged unnecessarily

17. In the present case, the prosecution relies on material which is yet to be proved at trial, the Applicant has already undergone a substantial period in custody, and no further investigative purpose will be served by his continued detention. The apprehension of the State that he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses is not unfounded, but such concerns can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions while granting bail. 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J.

18. In these circumstances, and without entering upon the merits of the prosecution case, this Court is of the considered view that the Applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail. ORDER The bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant, Lokesh Kumar, be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 0265 of 2023, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani, J.) 20.09.2025 1st Bail Application No.1907 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand 7 Ashish Naithani J.