IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 15th day of February, 2010 I Bail Application No. 1271 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. 49 of 2009 Under Sections: 420, 467, 468, 120-B 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. 49 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B of I.P.C., police station Clementown, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations in the F.I.R. relating to cheating of Rs. 13 lakhs, are against Sachin Sharma, son of the applicant. It is contended that for the act of son of the applicant, the applicant cannot be held responsible. 2 In reply to this on behalf of the complainant it is argued that the amount of Rs. 13 lakh, of which the bank draft was prepared and then the cheating was committed with the complainant, was drawn from the account of the applicant, and he has connivance with the accused Sachin Sharma. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents and complainant that the applicant has a long criminal history of committing forgery and cheating with various persons and number of cases are registered against him for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, considering long criminal history of the applicant, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail application is rejected. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 15.02.2010 H.Negi