IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 10th September, 2008 Criminal Bail Application No. 699 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused CRIMINAL SIDE Sanjay Kumar S/o Kameshwar Mishra R/o New Bus Stand, Sahrasha Thana District Sahrasha (Bihar) Presently R/o C-Block, Saraswati Bihar Dharampur, District Dehradun … Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand … Opposite Party Arising out of case crime No. 208 of 2008 Under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Dehradun _______________________________________________________ Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the alleged document, which has been said to be forged, has not been filed before the Investigating Officer by the complainant or the Investigating Officer has not obtained the forged document as alleged by the prosecution; it is admitted in the statements of the complainant and Bhanu Prasad recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the applicant-accused employed him as desired by the complainant and only the salary was less what was stated to him; the fact that no statement of Balaji Simen Training Institute has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify the fact that the document, which was issued by the applicant, was forged; and the fact that the service Viza was not obtained and only the visiting Viza was obtained by the applicant is not tenable as the person who seeks the Viza has to appear before the Embassy and he has to apply for the same. It was further contended on behalf of the applicant that two cheques were bounced but no proceeding under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act has been initiated by the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for bail. Let the accused-applicant be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 10.09.2008 LSR