Sushant Garg vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 July, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    Sushant Garg vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 July, 2026

                     Office
                     Notes,
                    reports,
                   orders or
                 proceedings
    SL.
          Date         or                     COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                  directions
                      and
                  Registrar's
                  order with
                  Signatures
                                UKHC010041602026
                                ABA/95/2026
    
                                Sushant Garg
                                                                          --Applicant
                                                    Versus
                                State Of Uttarakhand
                                                                    --Respondent
    
                                Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

    2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State.

    SPONSORED

    3. The present applicant is praying for
    anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case
    Crime No. 26 of 2020, under Section 409, 420,
    467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at
    Police Station-Kotwali Tehri, District-Tehri
    Garhwal.

    4. As per the pleadings made in the
    application, the applicant was the Secretary of
    Swami Vivekanand Education Trust. The
    institute-in-question was being run by the said
    trust. It is further mentioned that the other co-
    accused have already been granted anticipatory
    bail and since the applicant is permanently
    residing in Canada since the year 2014 in
    working viza and he very rarely visits to India
    that too to attend personal functions, as such, he
    had no knowledge about the lodging of the FIR in
    which he has also been named, nor he had any
    knowledge about the issuance of NBW against
    him or proceedings initiated under Section 82
    and 83 Cr.P.C.

    5. Learned counsel for the applicant would
    submit that applicant will cooperate with the
    investigation and will return to India to
    participate in the trial and as such three months
    time be granted to him so that he may arrange for
    his return to India.

    6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand,
    vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail
    application.

    7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
    perused the record.

    8. This Court finds some substance in the
    submission made by learned counsel for the
    applicant and having considered the
    submissions, this Court is of the view that all
    these aspects require deep scrutiny.

    9. Let the respondent-State may file counter
    affidavit within four weeks.

    10. List thereafter.

    11. In the meantime, as an interim measure,
    without expressing any opinion on the merit of
    the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest
    of the applicant when he returns to India within
    the time as requested by him, the applicant shall
    be released on an interim anticipatory bail,
    subject to furnishing a personal bond of
    Rs.30,000/- with two reliable sureties, each of the
    like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting
    Officer/Trial Court subject to the following
    conditions:-

    (i) The applicant shall cooperate with the
    investigation;

    (ii) The applicant shall not approach any
    witness in any manner, whatsoever.

    12. Since, this Court have granted the relief of
    anticipatory bail to the applicant, look out notice
    dated 08.08.2025 issued against the applicant
    shall also be kept in abeyance, subject to
    applicant fulfilling the aforesaid conditions.

    (Alok Mahra J.)
    23.07.2026
    Ujjwal



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here