Kuldeep Nandrajog v. State Of Uttarakhand

S.No. Case Crime/FIR Nos. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 418 of 2023 157 of 2024 183 of 2024 190 of 2024 145 of 2024 159 of 2024 186 of 2024 188 of 2024 214 of 2024 178 of 2024 221 of 2024 220 of 2024 217 of 2024 207 of 2024 171 of 2024 142 of 2024 182 of 2024 232 of 2024 144 of 2024 211 of 2024 219 of 2024 179 of 2024 27 of 2024 177 of 2024 29 of 2024 465 of 2024 176 of 2024 129 of 2024 25 of 2024 487 of 2024 26 of 2024 200 of 2024 28 of 2024 228 of 2024 501 of 2023 204 of 2024 167 of 2024 473 of 2023 155 of 2024 466 of 2023 136 of 2024 469 of 2023 180 of 2024 472 of 2023 500 of 2023 30 of 2024 470 of 2023 218 of 2024 137 of 2024 Police Station in all FIR Bahadrabad, District Haridwar Sections U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC 2 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 475 of 2023 482 of 2023 464 of 2023 480 of 2023 406 of 2023 477 of 2023 489 of 2023 160 of 2024 184 of 2024 185 of 2024 503 of 2023 471 of 2023 148 of 2024 450 of 2023 151 of 2024 457 of 2023 141 of 2024 467 of 2023 43 of 2024 502 of 2023 138 of 2024 455 of 2023 24 of 2024 149 of 2024 462 of 2023 146 of 2024 478 of 2023 154 of 2024 484 of 2023 389 of 2023 233 of 2024 215 of 2024 143 of 2024 153 of 2024 32 of 2024 37 of 2024 35 of 2024 132 of 2024 216 of 2024 131 of 2024 152 of 2024 156 of 2024 150 of 2024 128 of 2024 158 of 2024 140 of 2024 133 of 2024 U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC U/S 420 & 120-B of IPC 3

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court has granted relief by permitting common sureties in Criminal Misc. Application No. C- 528/226/2024 (order dated 16.08.2024) and Criminal Misc. Application No. C-528/369/2025 (order dated 25.03.2025).

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the Applicant produced a Rent Agreement as proof of tenancy. Same is taken on record.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application on the ground that the satisfaction of sureties lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the informants in the individual cases should also be heard before any blanket relief is granted. He further submits that the Rent Agreement provided by the learned counsel for the Applicant is not a valid ground as the tenancy is changeable.

8. This Court considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record. It is evident that the Applicant is facing multiple prosecutions, all arising out of similar allegations of cheating in the name of providing land/plots. In most of these cases, he has been enlarged on bail, but his continued incarceration is solely due to his inability to furnish separate sureties in each case.

9. The Coordinate Benches of this Court, in previous orders dated 16.08.2024 and 25.03.2025 in the Applicant’s earlier petitions, have granted similar relief, allowing the Applicant to furnish common sureties in multiple cases. The present matter stands on the same footing.

10. This Court is, therefore, confronted with the question as to whether, in such exceptional circumstances, the Applicant may be permitted to furnish a single set of sureties and personal bond to operate across all the FIRs in which bail has already been granted.

11. The provisions of Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the nature and sufficiency of bonds and sureties to be executed upon the grant of bail. The law empowers the Court to determine, in each case, what conditions would reasonably secure the 4 presence of the accused at trial.

12. In the opinion of this Court, when bail has already been granted in each of the 96 FIRs, and there is no allegation of breach of conditions or flight risk, the continued incarceration of the Applicant solely for want of multiple sureties is neither procedurally necessary nor constitutionally tenable.

13. This Court is also mindful of recent judicial observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in comparable contexts, particularly in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024 INSC 617), where, in view of multiple prosecutions and the impossibility of furnishing distinct sureties in each case, the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted the accused to execute one personal bond and two common sureties per State, holding such a direction to be legally permissible, proportionate, and consistent with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.

14. It has also been judicially recognised that when the substratum of allegations is common, the imposition of repetitive surety conditions may, in effect, operate as a denial of bail in substance, even where it has been formally granted.

15. In the present case, the multiplicity of FIRs appears to have created a procedural bottleneck, and not one rooted in any substantive apprehension of the Applicant's conduct.

16. In the interest of justice, to prevent undue hardship to the Applicant, and to secure his right to liberty, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application.

17. The apprehension of abscondence raised by the State can be sufficiently addressed by imposing suitable conditions.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application is allowed, subject to the following conditions: i. The Applicant, Kuldeep Nandrajog, shall furnish his current permanent address, along with valid proof thereof, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and the investigating agency. He shall not change his residence without prior intimation to the trial court concerned. ii. The Applicant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial 5 court within one week of his release. He shall not apply for the issuance of a fresh passport or any travel documents without prior permission of the trial court concerned. iii. The learned courts below are directed to accept common sureties for the release of the Applicant in all the cases mentioned in the annexed list, wherein he has already been granted bail. iv. The Applicant shall also provide a written undertaking to the effect that: v. He shall remain present before the Investigating Officer and the concerned courts as and when required; vi. He shall not tamper with evidence or threaten or influence any witness; vii. He shall not leave the country without prior leave of the competent court. viii. The Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar, shall take all necessary steps for the Applicant’s release upon acceptance of the consolidated bond and sureties, unless his custody is required in any other unconnected matter. ix. It is clarified that this direction is being issued as a matter of legal and procedural economy, considering the large number of FIRs arising from similar allegations, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any unrelated proceedings.

19. Let a copy of this order be circulated to the District Judge, Haridwar, and to all concerned Judicial Magistrates and courts for immediate compliance.

20. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.11.2025 6