JAIDEEP RAMJI TUKADIA ALIAS JAI JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:3396


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.123 of 2026
Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence: Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned legal aid counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)

The present first bail application has been moved by the applicant,
Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking his release on bail in
connection with F.I.R. dated 10.07.2024 being Case Crime No. 76 of
2024, registered at Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat, for
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 323, 344, 346, 347, 367, 374,
386, 419, 420 and 506 IPC, presently pending as Sessions Trial No. 1 of
2025. The applicant is in judicial custody since 15.09.2024.

2. The State’s case, in brief, is that a complaint was lodged by one
Gajendra Singh Saun alleging that his son, Lalit Saun, had gone from
Delhi to Bangkok for employment, but thereafter his whereabouts
became unknown. It was alleged that the complainant subsequently
came to know that his son was confined at an island in Myanmar and
was being subjected to harassment, and that communication was being
made through certain mobile numbers and a WhatsApp group.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, the present F.I.R. dated
10.07.2024 was registered initially under Section 365 IPC. During the

1
First Bail Application No. 123 of 2026-----Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand……


Ashish Naithani J.

course of investigation, statements of several witnesses and alleged
victims were recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet dated 06.12.2024 came to be filed against the applicant and others
for offences under Sections 120B, 323, 344, 346, 347, 367, 374, 386,
419, 420 and 506 IPC. Charges have also been framed and the trial is
stated to be in progress.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated and has no direct role in the alleged offence. It is
argued that the complainant is not an eye-witness and the F.I.R. is based
on hearsay information allegedly received from unknown sources, which
renders the State’s case doubtful.

5. It is further submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses
are contradictory in nature. While some witnesses have alleged that the
applicant arranged travel tickets, others have attributed such role to
different persons, thereby creating material inconsistencies in the State’s
case.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the charge-
sheet has already been filed and the evidence stands crystallized, hence
there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. It is also
contended that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
15.09.2024 and continued detention would amount to pre-trial
punishment.

7. It is further argued that the alleged incident is stated to have taken
place partly outside India and, therefore, in view of Section 208 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prior sanction of the Central
Government is required, which has not been obtained.

2
Bail Application 1st No. 123 of 2026-----Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand


Ashish Naithani J.

8. It is also submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail
in one similar case and undertakes to cooperate with the trial. On these
grounds, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

9. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application
and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in
nature and disclose an organized racket involving trafficking and
exploitation of innocent persons under the guise of providing
employment abroad.

10. It is submitted that during investigation, statements of multiple
victims and witnesses have been recorded which prima facie establish
the role of the applicant in luring victims, arranging their travel and
facilitating their illegal confinement and exploitation.

11. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant is a
habitual offender and is involved in other similar criminal cases
registered in the State of Uttarakhand, which reflects his criminal
antecedents.

12. It is also argued that considering the gravity of the offence, the
manner in which it has been committed and the possibility of influencing
witnesses, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

13. The Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record. From a prima facie reading of the record, it emerges that the
allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and pertain to an
organized activity involving inducement of persons on the pretext of
3
Bail Application 1st No. 123 of 2026-----Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand


Ashish Naithani J.

providing employment abroad, followed by their alleged illegal
transportation, confinement and exploitation in foreign territory.

14. As per State’s case, the son of the complainant had gone abroad
for employment and thereafter went missing, and during investigation
statements of multiple victims and witnesses have been recorded,
including the complainant and several alleged victims. The material on
record indicates that the investigation has culminated in submission of
charge-sheet after collection of what has been described as credible
evidence against the applicant.

15. The allegations against the applicant are serious. The State’s case,
based on statements of multiple victims, prima facie reveals an
organized racket wherein innocent unemployed persons were lured with
false promises of jobs abroad, their travel was arranged, and they were
thereafter illegally confined in Myanmar and subjected to bonded labour.
The offences include Sections 120B, 367, 374 and 386 IPC, which
reflect the gravity of the alleged conduct.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out contradictions in
the statements of witnesses regarding who arranged the air tickets. While
this Court notes these inconsistencies, at the stage of bail, a detailed
appreciation of evidence is neither required nor permissible. Such
contradictions are matters to be tested during trial and do not, at this
stage, render the State’s case unbelievable.

17. The argument based on Section 208 BNSS that the alleged offence
being committed outside India requires prior sanction of the Central
Government has been considered. This Court is of the view that this
submission goes to the jurisdiction of the trial court and does not
4
Bail Application 1st No. 123 of 2026-----Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand


Ashish Naithani J.

constitute an absolute bar on considering bail. This ground is not
sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage.

18. A significant factor weighing against the applicant is his criminal
antecedents. The Applicant is involved in two other similar cases in
Uttarakhand. While he has been granted bail in one, his bail application
in the other has been rejected. This pattern of repeated involvement in
identical offences raises a reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if
released, may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

19. The compounding entered into by a co-accused with some victims
does not entitle the applicant to bail as a matter of right, especially when
his alleged role appears distinct and more integral to the conspiracy.

ORDER
20. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner
in which it has been allegedly committed, as well as the criminal
antecedents attributed to the applicant, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail.

21. Accordingly, the bail application is .
rejected


(Ashish Naithani, J.)
24.04.2026
Arti



5
Bail Application 1st No. 123 of 2026-----Jaideep Ramji Tukadia @ Jai Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand


Ashish Naithani J.