KULDEEP NANDRAJOG v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2025-09-24. KULDEEP NANDRAJOG v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
2025:UHC:8615 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA TH 24 SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1797 of 2025 Kuldeep Nandrajog .. …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate through video conferencing. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Applicant-Kuldeep Nandrajog is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No. 500 of 2023, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. 2. According to the First Information Report dated 31. 10. 2023, the informant Kuldeep Kumar Katariya applied for a plot in the year, 2010 and deposited Rs. 9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakh) with M/S Octagon Builders and Promoters Private Ltd. , but he is not being given possession of his plot. 3. Heard Mr.
Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel 2025:UHC:8615 for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 4. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant was dealt with by Vibhu Vishwabandhu, the director of the company, and the entire responsibility of selling the plot was of Vibhu Vishwabandhu. Applicant had no connection with the sale of the plot to the informant. He had not cheated the informant. He had not received any amount from the informant. The company has gone under liquidation. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Applicant is in custody for a long period. The co-accused has been granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5. Mr.
Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally. 6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under 2025:UHC:8615 Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9.
Let the applicant- Kuldeep Nandrajog be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:24. 09. 2025 Neha
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.