IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 15th day of February, 2010 I Bail Application No. 1270 of 2009 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Mahant Vedanand Saraswati @ Ved Prakash Sharma S/o Sri Jai Prakash Sharma, R/o Sharda Dham, Ranipur Jhal, P.S. Jwalapur, Distrioct Haridwar. ………… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ………… Opposite Party Arising out of Crime No. 58 of 2009 Under Sections: 386, 506 of I.P.C. Police Station: Clementown District: Dehradun. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate present for the applicant. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder present for the State. Mr. B.D. Jha and Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocates present for the complainant. Applicant Mahant Vedanand Saraswati @ Ved Prakash Sharma, who is in jail in connection with Crime No. 58 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Section 386, 506 of I.P.C., police station Clementown, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the applicant after committing the crime of forgery and cheating amounting to Rs. 13 lakhs, as against the complainant (in respect of which separate crime No. 49 of 2009 2 was registered), threatened the complainant that he would kill him if the criminal case filed against the applicant is not withdrawn. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the connected F.I.R. No. 49 of 2009, the allegations are against Sachin Sharma (son of present applicant). It is contended that the complainant is an Advocate and the applicant had no occasion to commit the offence alleged in the present F.I.R. In reply to this on behalf of the respondent and complainant attention of this Court is drawn to the long criminal history of the applicant about which details are given in Para 17 of the counter affidavit, which indicates number of cases of cheating and forgery committed by the applicant in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the criminal history of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. The bail application is rejected. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 15.02.2010 H.Negi