Uttarakhand High Court
Ayush Kumar @ Sikandar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Impleadment Application No. 3 of 2026
In
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 256 of 2026
Ayush Kumar @ Sikandar. .......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the
State.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the applicant in impleadment / intervention application no. 03
of 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. By the instant writ petition, petitioner is praying for the following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 13.11.2025 being FIR No. 0177 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 2 / 3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Prem Nagar, Dehradun."
2. In the instant FIR, petitioner has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 2 / 3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Prem Nagar, District - Dehradun. Petitioner herein has been implicated in the impugned FIR on the basis of two criminal cases bearing Case Crime No. 104 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 103 (1)/ 3 (5), 61 (2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station - Prem Nagar, Dehradun and Case Crime No. 443 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 109 / (1) of BNS, 2023 and 2 under Section 25 (1-B) (A) of the Arms Act, Police Station - Mangalore, District Haridwar.
3. In this petition, an intervention application no. 03 of 2026 has been moved Mr. Lalit Miglani, on behalf of one Abhishek Bertwal, son of Shri Santosh Kumar seeking his impleadment as well as leave to intervene in this petition.
4. The main contention of Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel is that the applicant of I.A. No. 03 of 2026 he is in fact a victim, since he is a star witness in Case Crime No. 104 of 2025 wherein the petitioner is an accused for offence punishable under Section 103 (1)/ 3 (5), 61 (2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station - Prem Nagar, District Dehradun and as such, in the present case, he is the necessary party to be impleaded as party respondent.
5. In support of his argument, Mr. Lalit Miglani, submits that in terms of Section 2 (1) (y) of the BNSS, 2023, present applicant being star witness in case crime no. 104 of 2025, falls within the purview of "victim". Section 2 (1) (y) of the BNSS, 2023 reads as under:
"2 (1) (y) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim.
6. Mr. Miglani further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and others Vs. Ashish Mishra and others (2022) 9 SCC 321 by placing reliance on paragraph 24.2 of the said judgment, which is read as under:
7. "24.2.Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be 3 accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses."
8. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Sr. Advocate / Addl. Advocate General for the State submits that under the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 "any witness" of any other criminal case, do not fall under the purview of "victim" in a proceeding under Gangster Act. A person, who has been implicated under the Gangsters Act. He submits that under this Act since the present applicant, who moved impleadment application is star witness in another case in which present petitioner is facing his trial, therefore, being a star witness in that trial, present applicant cannot be treated as victim in this FIR since only the State can be a "victim"
9. This Court primarily convinced with the arguments of Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Sr. Advocate / Addl. Advocate General for the State.
10. Apart from this, there is one another aspect, which is in fact admitted fact that this applicant, who moved the intervention application is certainly one of the prosecution witness in the trial in which present applicant is an accused, therefore, there may be possibility that this applicant being a star witness in the trial with some ulterior purposes and motive and with some vested interest want to intervention in this matter. This aspect goes to the root of 4 the matter and for what purposes this applicant wants to intervene in the present matter, particularly, when the State machinery is very vigilant, which is evident from the fact that the petitioner is also booked under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, this Court is primarily of the view that the instant intervention application has been moved with some ulterior purposes and motive.
11. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General may address on this aspect on the next date.
12. List on 24.02.2026.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.02.2025 SKS