Manish Alias Bolar v. State of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

25th FEBRUARY, 2026

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1907 of 2025

Manish alias Bolar

..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant

Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant – Manish alias Bolar is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 111, 351 and Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.415 of 2025, registered at Kotwali, District Haridwar.

2.

As per the First Information Report dated

27.08.2025, the applicant and the co-accused persons created a fake power of attorney deed and showed that the said deed was executed by one Rekha. Thereafter, sale-deed of two plots was executed on the basis of the said forged power of attorney deed.

3.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

4.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the

applicant is not a member of any Gang. He did not threaten to anyone. There were four other criminal cases registered against him. He has been acquitted in three criminal cases and he is on bail in another criminal case. Applicant did not execute the power of attorney deed. He is not the witness to the alleged Power of Attorney deed. The alleged sale-deed was not executed by him. He is not the witness to the said sale-deed. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is in custody since 28.08.2025.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application. He submitted that the informant was threatened by the applicant.

¶6Bail 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 Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused 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 – Manish alias Bolar 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 with the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly

and he shall not seek any unnecessary

adjournment; and,

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

any inducement, threat or promise to the

informant or to any person, acquainted with the

facts of this case.

___________________

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 25.02.2026 Pant /