DUSHYANT KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010090972026

2026:UHC:9621

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


BA1/926/2026

Dushyant Kumar
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand

--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior
Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Dobhal, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.M.
Pingal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for
the complainant.
2. The present bail application has been
filed by the applicant, who is in judicial
custody in connection with FIR No. 135 of
2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali
Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4),
336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
4. As per the prosecution case, the
applicant is the Manager of the Committee of
Management of Dayanand Anglo Vedic
Shiksha Samaj Educational Society,
Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, which runs and
manages the affairs of B.D. Inter College,
Bhagwanpur. It is alleged that the applicant,
in connivance with certain other members of
the society, executed a sale deed in favour of
one Vinay Saini in respect of land belonging
to the society without obtaining prior
permission from the competent authority,
namely, the Registrar under the Societies
Registration Act. It is further alleged that,

UKHC010090972026

2026:UHC:9621

instead of depositing the sale consideration
in the bank account of the society, the
applicant deposited the same in his personal
account. According to the prosecution, the
market value of the land was more than ₹ 3.5
crores, whereas the sale deed was executed
for a consideration of only ₹ 1 crore, thereby
causing loss to the society.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant submits that, prior to the
execution of the sale deed, permission had
been sought from the Registrar and that the
Deputy Registrar had recommended the
same and forwarded the relevant report to
the Registrar. It is contended that the
applicant was under a bona fide
misconception of law and believed that the
recommendation made by the Deputy
Registrar amounted to permission for
executing the sale deed. It is further
submitted that the charge-sheet has already
been filed and cognizance was taken on
06.07.2026. As per the charge-sheet, there
are 30 prosecution witnesses; however, not a
single prosecution witness has been
examined till date. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the applicant is a
senior citizen and is suffering from a heart
ailment, on account of which he has
frequently been referred to AIIMS, Rishikesh,
for medical treatment. The applicant has
been in judicial custody since 08.04.2026. It
is also contended that the evidence in the
case is documentary in nature and,
therefore, there is no likelihood of the
applicant tampering with the evidence.
Furthermore, he has placed reliance upon
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Mahesh Chandra Joshi vs. State of
Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine 2197, in
support of his submissions.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel and
learned counsel for the complainant have
opposed the bail application.

UKHC010090972026

2026:UHC:9621

7. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that,
having regard to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the
fact that the applicant is a senior citizen
suffering from a heart ailment and requires
continuous medical supervision, as well as
the fact that not a single prosecution witness
has been examined despite cognizance
having been taken on 06.07.2026, the
applicant's prayer for bail merits
consideration. This Court also takes note of
the submission that the evidence in the case
is primarily documentary in nature.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this Court is of the
view that the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
8. It is the admitted case of the applicant
that he has received a sum of ₹ 30,00,000/-
out of the sale consideration and that he is
ready and willing to deposit the said amount
before the Registry of this Court. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the said undertaking is taken into
consideration while deciding the present bail
application.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail
upon furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to the condition that the applicant
₹
shall deposit a sum of 30,00,000/- before
the Registry of this Court in the form of a
fixed deposit receipt (FDR) within fifteen
days from the date of issuance of the
certified copy of this order.
11. It is made clear that any observation
made hereinabove is confined to the
adjudication of the present bail application
and shall not be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.

UKHC010090972026

2026:UHC:9621

11. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
26-10-2026
SB