Uttarakhand High Court
Aakash Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 March, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2026:UHC:1647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
12th MARCH, 2026
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2505 of 2025
Aakash Saxena .....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 – Aakash Saxena is in judicial custody
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 111(3),
351(2) and Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 in Case Crime No.415 of 2025, registered at Kotwali
Gangnahar, District Haridwar.
2. In short, the allegations in the First Information
Report dated 27.08.2025 are that a fake power of attorney
deed was created and showed that the said power of
attorney 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
1
2026:UHC:1647
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
He is not a member of any Gang. He did not threaten to
anyone. He has no criminal antecedents. He did not execute
the power of attorney deed. He is not the witness to the
power of attorney deed. The sale-deed was not executed by
him. He is only a witness to the said sale-deed. The said
registered power of attorney deed was not cancelled at the
time of the execution of the sale-deed. Applicant is a
permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is
no possibility of his absconding. Manish alias Bolar, Hasan
Abbas Jaidi and Sher Singh, these three co-accused, have
already been granted regular bail by this Court, and,
applicant is in custody since 05.12.2025.
5. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government
Advocate, has opposed the bail application.
6. Bail 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 investigation or 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,
2
2026:UHC:1647
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 – Aakash Saxena 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.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 12.03.2026
Shiv/
3