RAJENDRA KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010170682025
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date

No.

2026:UHC:8122

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/2057/2025
Rajendra Kumar --Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel with
Ms. Zeba Naaz, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for
the State.
3. The instant bail application is moved
on behalf of the applicant Rajendra Kumar,
S/o Late Somnath, R/o Hariyana seeking
regular bail in reference to first information
report dated 25.08.2025 bearing FIR No.0021
of 2025, P.S. Cyber Crime, Kumaon Division,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
which was lodged against one unknown
person for the offences punishable under
Sections 3(5), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS and Section
66 D of I.T. Act.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated and infact the
alleged amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was
credited in the account of one Bhupendra
Singh, who is the proprietor of M/s Cosmos
Enterprises where the applicant was serving
as a Supervisor. He also submits that
Bhupendra Singh though charge sheeted but
never been arrested and he was given only
the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023. He

submits that the charge sheet is already filed
in the present case and as per the charge
sheet prosecution case is that the holder of
account no.50200108845801 of HDFC bank is
the proprietor of the firm, namely, M/s
Cosmos Enterprises, Mr. Bhupendra Singh.
He submits that even as per charge sheet the
mobile number of Bhupendra Singh was
linked with the aforesaid account despite this
without any substance and material, the
applicant was arrested. He also submits that
the applicant have criminal antecedents of
another case that too relates to land dispute
and except this he has no other criminal
antecedents of the similar nature of
allegations and since now the charge sheet is
filed and the present applicant is languishing
in jail since 31.08.2025, therefore, the
applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. In addition to this he also submits that
even as per the charge sheet the main person,
who is involved and the actual beneficiary, is
the proprietor of the firm Mr. Bhupendra
Singh and not the applicant since the
applicant was a paid servant of the company
and he in any manner has no concern with
any such transaction and even he is not the
beneficiary and the charge sheet is filed in a
very mechanical manner. He further submits
that all the offences are triable by Magistrate
and also apprise, on instruction, that after the
charge sheet, Bhupendra Singh, the
proprietor of the firm was arrested but
subsequently he was enlarged on bail by the
trial court.
6. On the other side Mr. Sandeep Sharma,
learned AGA have not disputed that charge

sheet is already filed. He also submits that
the investigation reveals that though the
account was in the name of the proprietor of
the firm, Mr. Bhupendra Singh but it was
being operated by the applicant being a
Supervisor of the company. He further
submits that after collecting credible
evidence the charge sheet is filed and since
the allegations relates to the serious crime of
digital arrest, therefore, the applicant should
not be enlarged on bail, otherwise there may
be possibility that after being released on
bail, he may indulge in such activities in
future.
7. After hearing the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration that the charge sheet has
already been filed and the account in
question is infact in the name of the
proprietor of the firm Mr. Bhupendra Singh,
and the applicant was only a salaried
employee and merely that the applicant was
operating the account, it cannot be said that
he was involved since he act on the dictates
of his employer Bhupendra Singh, therefore,
at this juncture, when the charge sheet is
filed and the applicant is languishing in jail
since last more than one year, this Court is of
the view that applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merit of the case, the bail
application is allowed.
9. Let the present applicant-Rajendra
Kumar be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned subject to the

following conditions:-

i. The applicant after being released
on bail shall join trial court
proceeding on each and every date
without seeking any unnecessary
adjournment.
ii. The applicant shall surrender his
passport, if any, to the concerned trial
court within a week after being
released on bail and shall not leave the
country without prior permission of
the trial court.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in
any such activity in future.

10. Trial court may proceed the trial
without being influenced with the
observation as above.


(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
09.09.2026
Arti