HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.960 of 2024
Rahul Chaudhary alias Rahul Kannojiya .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. N.K.
Papnoi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
With
First Bail Application No.921 of 2024
Deepak Raj Sharma .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. N.K.
Papnoi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
And
First Bail Application No.955 of 2024
Siddharth Alias Siddhant Chauhan .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. N.K.
Papnoi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since all these bail applications arise from one
and the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.
2
2. Applicants are in judicial custody in FIR No. 22 of
2024, under Sections 201, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police
Station Cyber, District Dehradun. He has sought his release
on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, on 18.03.2023, STF
received an information that in the name Pradhan Mantri
Mudra Loan Yojna cheating is done by someone from Prem
Nagar, District Dehradun. Police raided a premises and
arrested applicants Rahul Chaudhary and Siddharth alias
Siddhant Chauhan. These two applicants revealed that it is
the applicant Deepak Raj Sharma, who had planned this
design and act. According to the prosecution, various ATMs,
passbooks, notebooks, mobile phones etc. were recovered
from the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit
that it is no evidence case. Merely, certain articles were
recovered and on assumptions, the applicants have been
arrested. There is no person as such victim, who has been
cheated by the applicants.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that the
applicants were running a racket of cheating the people. He
3
would submit that till date, no victim has been located
because most of the victims are from the Southern state,
where the Investigating Officer is facing language barrier.
7. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that the applicants deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
8. The bail applications are allowed.
9. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
31.07.2024
Jitendra