Aakash Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand

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

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.

¶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 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,

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/