Senior Citizen With Heart Ailment Gets Bail In College Society Land-Sale Case, Subject To ₹30 Lakh Deposit: Uttarakhand HC

The applicant, Manager of the Committee of Management of Dayanand Anglo Vedic Shiksha Samaj Educational Society, was in judicial custody in connection with an FIR alleging that he and others sold society land without prior permission from the Registrar, deposited the sale proceeds into his personal account, and undervalued the land.

He was charged under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant maintained that permission had been sought and that he had understood the Deputy Registrar’s recommendation to authorise the sale. He also relied on his age, heart condition, the documentary nature of the evidence, and the fact that no prosecution witnesses had been examined after cognizance was taken.

He admitted receiving ₹30 lakh from the sale consideration and offered to deposit that amount with the Court.

The alleged offences were punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court exercised its bail jurisdiction by assessing the overall circumstances, including the applicant’s health, the progress of the proceedings, and the nature of the evidence.

The applicant relied on Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine 2197, but the order does not expressly adopt or analyse that decision as a basis for its ruling.

The Court considered the applicant’s senior-citizen status and heart ailment requiring medical supervision, the fact that no prosecution witness had been examined despite cognizance having been taken, and the primarily documentary nature of the evidence.

It also took into account the applicant’s admission that he had received ₹30 lakh and his undertaking to deposit that sum.

On those circumstances, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found that bail was warranted.

The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, subject to depositing ₹30 lakh with the Registry by way of fixed deposit receipt within fifteen days from issuance of the certified copy of the order.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and did not express an opinion on the merits.