Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 483 Of Bhartiya Nagarik ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.167 of 2025
(Under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Yuvraj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. G. C. Joshi, learned A.G.A., for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. This is the Applicant's second bail application under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in
connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 232 of 2024, registered at Police
Station - Transit Camp, District - Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections
318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of the B.N.S. The
case arises from allegations of a financial fraud involving the unauthorized
withdrawal of ₹13.51 crores from the account of the National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) maintained with IndusInd Bank, Rudrapur.
2. It is alleged that the amount was withdrawn using three forged cheques
bearing numbers 215713, 215714, and 215715, supported by fabricated
documentation and processed without prior verification or intimation to
NHAI. The FIR was registered on 02.09.2024 following the detection
ofsuspicious transactions by the complainant, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer.
1
Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of
Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5919
3. Though the Applicant's name was not initially mentioned in the FIR, his
alleged involvement emerged during the investigation. It is alleged that he
used a Scorpio vehicle, in coordination with the co-accused bank official,
Devendra Singh, and facilitated the submission of forged cheques. The
Applicant was arrested on 01.10.2024 and has been in custody since then.
He has a criminal history involving financial offences registered in
Gujarat, including FIRs at Bhuj and Gandhidham under IPC and the
Prevention of Corruption Act, and is also named in a CBI case in
Gandhinagar.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the State's case is based
entirely on circumstantial evidence and subsequent investigation, and that
no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR. It is submitted that the
alleged CCTV footage is inadmissible as evidence in the absence of
certification under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. No
handwriting analysis has been conducted to connect the Applicant with the
forged documents, and no misappropriated amount has been recovered
from him or traced to his bank accounts. The Applicant further claims to
suffer from serious medical ailments, including uncontrolled diabetes,
hypertension, and chronic hepatitis C, requiring treatment from Sushila
Tiwari Government Hospital and AIIMS, Rishikesh.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application, submitting that the Applicant is the key conspirator who
played a central role in orchestrating the fraudulent transaction. The
investigation has revealed that he used a vehicle to ferry the person who
submitted the forged cheques, interacted with the bank manager before the
incident, and subsequently went into hiding. The Applicant allegedly
destroyed his mobile phone and the vehicle, thus hindering the
investigation.
2
Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of
Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5919
7. The State also places reliance on CCTV footage from the bank premises
and statements recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S., asserting that the
evidence points towards the Applicant's direct involvement.
8. Furthermore, the Applicant's history of similar offences in other
jurisdictions, along with unverifiable residential addresses and a frequent
change of location, raises agenuine concern that he may abscond or tamper
with evidence if released on bail.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the case record,
this Court proceeds to make the following observations:
10. At the outset, it is necessary to emphasize that the nature and
seriousness of the accusations form a key factor in the adjudication of a
bail application. In the present matter, the allegations pertain to a
meticulously planned and executed financial fraud involving the
misappropriation of ₹13.51 crores from a government account maintained
by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
11. The fraud was committed through the use of forged cheques bearing
serial numbers 215713, 215714, and 215715. These cheques were
allegedly cleared without any verification against internal records, raising
suspicion of collusion between private actors and bank officials.
12. Although the Applicant's name did not surface in the initial FIR, his
alleged role came to light during the investigation. Notably, the Applicant
is stated to have used a vehicle (Scorpio, registration UK-06BH-1322)
during the commission of the crime and was observed interacting with the
primary co-accused, Devendra Singh, who was the Branch Manager of
IndusInd Bank. Moreover, circumstantial evidence suggests that the
Applicant was involved in dropping off the person who submitted the
forged cheques for clearance. This is corroborated by CCTV footage,
albeit contested by the Applicant on the grounds of lack of certification
under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Such
3
Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of
Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5919
evidentiary concerns are best addressed during the trial phase and cannot
form the basis for discarding the investigation's findings at this stage.
13. Furthermore, this Court notes with concern that the Applicant has not
fully cooperated with the investigation. His mobile phone and vehicle,
both crucial in tracing communication and movement,have not been
recovered, and it is alleged that these were deliberately destroyed. The
Applicant also went missing shortly after the registration of the FIR and
was declared absconding. This conduct demonstrates a conscious attempt
to obstruct the course of justice. It raises a reasonable apprehension that, if
released, the Applicant may again abscond or interfere with evidence and
witnesses.
14. The Court also takes into account the Applicant's prior criminal history,
which includes multiple FIRs involving offences under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. These cases, registered in Gujarat and under investigation by the CBI
and local police, reveal a recurring pattern of involvement in economic
offences. The gravity of the present charges must be assessed in light of
this background. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, economic offences involving
deep-rooted conspiracies and serious financial implications for public
institutions are to be treated differently when considering bail, especially
where there is a credible apprehension of tampering or absconding.
15. The Applicant has relied heavily on his medical condition to press for
release. While this Court is not unsympathetic to his health concerns, the
medical records placed on record do not suggest any terminal or life-
threatening condition that cannot be managed with adequate care in
judicial custody. The State has not denied that medical attention is being
provided to the Applicant as and when required. Hence, the Applicant's
4
Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of
Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5919
physical ailments do not, at present, constitute a compelling ground for
bail.
16. The Court has also considered the argument of parity with co-accused
Devendra Singh, who has been granted bail. However, the parameters of
parity are not met in the present case. The roles assigned to the Applicant
and co-accused are distinct. The Applicant is alleged to have been part of
the foundational stages of the conspiracy, with a hands-on role in
planning, coordination, and post-offence concealment of evidence. Parity
in bail cannot be claimed in isolation without reference to the distinct
factual matrix involving each accused.
17. Moreover, the investigation is still in progress. Although the
chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, only one
prosecution witness (PW-1) has been examined thus far, while fifteen
witnesses remain to be examined. The Applicant's release at this stage
carries a substantial risk of disrupting the smooth progress of the trial.
ORDER
In view of the totality of circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the Applicant's role in the conspiracy as revealed during investigation, his prior involvement in similar financial offences, and his conduct during and after the commission of the alleged crime, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. His release would pose a real and substantial risk of absconding, non-cooperation with the trial, and possible tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also finds no new material or substantial change in circumstances from the date of rejection of the earlier bail application that would warrant a departure from the previous order passed by this Court on 04.03.2025.
5Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5919 Hence, the second bail application is devoid of merit and stands rejected.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated: 27.06.2025 NR/ 6 Second Bail Application No.167 of 2025-----Lalit Kumar Mahendra @ Lalli @ Shivdass Patil v. State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.