Uttarakhand High Court
Lalit Kumar Mahendra Alias Lali Alias ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2530 of 2024
Lalit Kumar Mahendra alias Lali alias Shivdass Patil ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)
The applicant has filed the present bail application, Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lali @ Shivdas Patil, who is currently in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 232 of 2024, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The applicant has been charged under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested on October 15, 2024, and has remained in custody since then.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr D.C.S. Rawat, and learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr S.C. Dumka, and has perused the record.
3. The case originates from an FIR lodged by Kaustubh Mishra, Special Land Acquisition Officer, who alleged large-scale financial misappropriation involving the fraudulent withdrawal of government funds. According to the FIR, on August 28, 2024, and August 31, 2024, an amount of ₹13.51 crores was fraudulently transferred from an NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) 2 account through three forged cheques bearing numbers 215713, 215714, and 215715.
4. It has been alleged that these cheques were fabricated using counterfeit signatures and falsified documents, thereby facilitating the unauthorised withdrawal of funds.
5. The fraudulent transactions were first flagged on 2nd of September 2024, when a representative of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) contacted an office assistant to report suspicious activity.
6. Upon further inquiry, it was discovered that the original cheques bearing the exact numbers were still intact in official records, thereby confirming the forgery and fraud. The complainant also noted serious lapses in banking protocols, as no prior verification or notification was undertaken before processing the cheques.
7. Additionally, suspicions were raised regarding possible collusion between bank officials and the accused individuals involved in the fraudulent transactions; although the applicant was not named in the FIR, his alleged involvement emerged during the investigation.
8. It is alleged that the applicant played a pivotal role in orchestrating the fraud, working in coordination with other accused individuals to forge cheques and ensure their fraudulent clearance. 3
9. It is further alleged that the misappropriated funds were transferred to multiple accounts in different states, including Chandigarh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra.
10. The investigation also suggests that the applicant used a Scorpio vehicle (UK-06BH-1322) while executing the crime and coordinating with co-accused persons, including bank officials. Additionally, the applicant has a criminal history and has been involved in similar financial fraud cases in Gujarat. It has been brought on record that the applicant is implicated in FIR No. 1/38/2019 (Bhuj, Gujarat) under Sections 406, 420, 114, 34, and 120B IPC, FIR No. 11993006201166/2020 (Gandhidham, Gujarat) under the Gambling Prevention Act, and FIR No. RC0292020A0015 (CBI, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) under Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
11. It has also been alleged that the applicant frequently changed his place of residence and was found absconding after the commission of the present offence.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as his name does not appear in the FIR, nor is any specific role attributed to him at the time of lodging the complaint. It is contended that the state's case is based entirely on the subsequent investigation, which, according to the counsel for the applicant, has been conducted arbitrarily.
4
13. It is further argued that there is no material evidence linking the applicant to the alleged financial fraud.
14. No handwriting expert's report confirms his involvement in forging the cheques, and no misappropriated amount has been credited to his bank account.
15. The applicant contends that there is no direct connection between him and the bank officials accused of facilitating the fraud, and no incriminating recovery has been made from his possession.
16. The applicant has been in judicial custody since October 15, 2024, and the counsel argues that his continued detention serves no purpose as the investigation is substantially complete.
17. It is also contended that the delay in lodging the FIR casts doubt on the State's case, as the alleged fraudulent transactions took place on the 28th and 31st of August 2024, while the FIR was only registered on the 2nd of September 2024 without a proper explanation.
18. Additionally, it is submitted that the applicant has no prior convictions and is suffering from serious health issues, as evidenced by his treatment at Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital and AIIMS, Rishikesh. The applicant claims that he is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court and that there is no risk of him absconding or tampering with evidence. 5
19. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant is the main conspirator in the present case and was actively involved in the fraudulent misappropriation of ₹13.51 crores from the government account maintained by NHAI (National Highways Authority of India).
20. It is argued that while the applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR, his direct involvement emerged during the investigation, which revealed that he played a crucial role in preparing forged cheques and executing the fraud in coordination with other accused individuals, including bank officials.
21. The State relies on substantial evidence collected during the investigation, which includes forged cheques, statements of key witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and CCTV footage from the bank premises. The forged cheques, bearing numbers 215713, 215714, and 215715, were allegedly prepared by the applicant and fraudulently cleared using counterfeit signatures.
22. The State further contends that the CCTV footage collected from IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur, shows a suspicious individual arriving at the bank with a yellow envelope containing the forged cheques and submitting them for clearance. Additionally, the footage shows the presence of co-accused bank manager Devendra Singh, who was inside the bank's cabin while the fraudulent transaction was executed.
6
23. It is further submitted that the applicant was using a Scorpio vehicle (registration no.UK-06BH-1322) at the time of the offence and allegedly coordinated the fraudulent transaction from a nearby location.
24. The State asserts that after the fraud was exposed, the applicant went into hiding and deliberately destroyed crucial evidence, including his mobile phone and the vehicle used in the crime. This made it difficult for the investigating agency to recover further proof. Despite efforts to locate and seize the vehicle, it has not yet been recovered.
25. The State also highlights that the applicant has a criminal history and is involved in similar financial fraud cases registered in Gujarat. He has been named as an accused in:
(1) FIR No. 1/38/2019 (Bhuj, Gujarat) under Sections 406, 420, 114, 34, 120B IPC, involving financial misappropriation.
(2) FIR No. 11993006201166/2020 (Gandhidham, Gujarat) under the Gambling Prevention Act, indicating his involvement in illegal financial activities.
(3) FIR No. RC0292020A0015 (CBI, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) under Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, related to financial fraud and corruption.
26. The investigation agency also submitted that the applicant's permanent residence could not be verified, as he was found to be staying at different locations, including with his co- accused, Meenu Bathla. Further verification revealed that the address mentioned in his passport was incorrect, raising serious concerns about his likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.
7
27. The State has also sought details of his criminal history from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the report of which is still awaited.
28. Given the seriousness of the offence, the magnitude of the financial misappropriation, the applicant's criminal history, and the risk of absconding, the State submits that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. The State further contends that granting bail at this stage would obstruct the ongoing investigation, as key evidence, including the missing vehicle and the destroyed mobile phone, is yet to be recovered.
29. In view of the overwhelming evidence against the applicant and the gravity of the allegations, the State prays for the rejection of the bail application. This Court is mindful of the serious nature of the allegations against the applicant, particularly in light of the substantial financial misappropriation amounting to ₹13.51 crores.
30 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held that:
"35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.".
31. In the present matter, the evidence on record, including forged cheques, witness statements, and CCTV footage, prima facie, establishes the applicant's involvement in the fraudulent transactions.
32. Additionally, the applicant has a well-documented history of financial crimes, as evident from multiple cases 8 registered against him in Gujarat under serious penal provisions, including those relating to fraud, cheating, conspiracy and corruption. His habitual involvement in white-collar crimes and his evasive conduct, changes of residence, and destruction of evidence strengthen the apprehension that, if released, he will abscond or tamper with evidence.
33. Upon careful consideration of all aspects, and in the absence of any cogent grounds warranting the grant of bail, this Court is of the firm opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released at this stage
34. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) 04.03.2025