IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 11th day of May, 2010 Second Bail Application No. 31 of 2010. Criminal Side Mahant Vedanand Saraswati @ Ved Prakash Sharma S/o Sri Jagdish Prasad R/o Sharda Dham Near Ranipur Jhal Jwalapur, District Haridwar ……...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand, through its Secretary Home, Dehradun. ……….Opposite Party Arising out of Crime No. 49 of 2009 Under Sections: 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. P.S. Clementown, Dehradun District: Dehradun. - Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J Heard Shri S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Yashveer Sethi, Advocate, present for the applicant. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Applicant- Mahant Vedanand Saraswati @ Ved Prakash Sharma who is in jail in connection with crime No. 49 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Clementown , Dehradun, has sought his release on bail through this second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits, after hearing the parties, on 15.2.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further pleaded that in the criminal cases which were registered against him earlier, he has been released on bail. It is a case of cheating of rupees thirteen lacs (Rs. 13,00,000/-). It is alleged that by the fake bank draft accused made an attempt to pay rupees thirteen lacs (Rs. 13,00,000/-) to the complainant from whom he got a sale deed of a piece of land executed in the name of his son Sachin Sharma. Learned counsel for the State submitted that during investigation involvement of the applicant was found as the bank draft got prepared from the account of the present applicant was got scanned and used, in the manner alleged by the complainant. Applicant has criminal history of similar cases of cheating in the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007. It is pointed out on behalf of applicant that the applicant is already on bail in said cases, but merely for the reason that he was granted bail in previous cases, he cannot be granted bail in the present case which is grave and serious in nature, and releasing the applicant may embolden him to further commit such crimes. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record this Court does not find any new ground for bail. The second bail application for release on bail in crime No. 49 of 2009, P.S. Clement Town, is rejected. Dt. 11.05.2010 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul