Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Uttarakhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. February

Pramendra Singh Rawat vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 29 February 2024• Citation: BA1/1085/2023• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                   HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL              
                          First Bail Application No. 1085 of 2023                   
                  Parmendra  Singh Rawat                   ….....Applicant          
                                           Versus                                   
                  State of Uttarakhand                   ….….Respondent             
                  Present:-                                                         
                       Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.                
                       Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.                         
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            Applicant Parmendra  Singh Rawat  is in judicial        
                  custody in Case Crime  No.9 of 2022, under Sections 409,          
                  420  and 120-B IPC  and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of        
                  Corruption  Act, 1988, Police Station Lansdown, District          
                  Pauri Garhwal. He has sought  his release on bail.                
                  2.        Heard   learned counsel  for the  parties and           
                  perused  the record.                                              
                  3.        According   to the  FIR,  the  applicant  was           
                  working  in a public works department.  Amongst  others,          
                  his duty  was to return the 10  per cent of the security          
                  deposits to the contractors. But, in an enquiry, it was           
                  found  that the applicant did not return the 10 per cent of       
                  the  security deposits of 19 contractors and transferred          
                  that amount  in the account of his brother, friends, wife,        

                                              2                                     
                  drivers,  etc,   and   total   Rs.   31,75,096/-   were           
                  misappropriated.                                                  
                  4.        Learned   counsel  for  the  applicant  would           
                  submit   that  the   applicant  has  already  deposited           
                  Rs.25,13,296/-; PW1   has already been examined  at trial         
                  and  in his cross-examination, he has admitted that many          
                  more  persons may be involved in it.                              
                  5.        Learned  State Counsel  would submit  that the          
                  witnesses have  supported the prosecution; PW1 has  also          
                  stated about it; it is admitted case; the applicant himself       
                  has deposited more than Rs.25 Lakhs.                              
                  6.        Being  a  public  servant, the  applicant has           
                  misappropriated  huge amount  and, as per chargesheet, it         
                  was  deposited  in the account  of his brother Ravindra           
                  Singh, his wife Anupma,  friends, drivers, etc, thereby he        
                  misappropriated  Rs. 31,75,096/-. In fact, the applicant          
                  has admitted it.                                                  
                  7.        Having  considered, this Court does not see any         
                  reason,  which   may   entitle the   applicant to  bail.          
                  Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.        

                                              3                                     
                  8.        The bail application is rejected.                       
                                                   (Ravindra Maithani, J.)          
                                                          29.02.2024                
                  Ravi Bisht