Uttarakhand High Court
Saddam Hussain vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:11671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
18stMarch 2026
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1032 of 2025
Saddam Hussain ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned
counsel .
Counsel for the State: Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned
Brief Holder.
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned
counsel for complainant.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
In the instant anticipatory bail application, the applicant Saddam Hussain S/o Shakira Hussain is praying for anticipatory bail, on an apprehension that the respondent/complainant is compelling the applicant to marry with her and the police is calling the present applicant. Statement as given in para 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the anticipatory bail application are being reproduced herein asunder:-
"4. That present applicant and the complainant fell in love and had physical relationship with their free will.
5. That as present applicant has 05 sisters, therefore present applicant wanted his sisters to get married first and then he will get married.1
2025:UHC:11671
6. That 04 sisters have married and 01 sister is still remaining to get married and present applicant has told the complainant that he will marry after his sister.
7. That the complainant has made a very big issue of marriage and is forcing applicant to get married to her and this has annoyed the family members of the applicant and now the family members are against the marriage of the applicant with complainant."
2. Earlier the Coordinate Bench granted interim protection to the applicant on 19.09.2025 by granting interim bail subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
(ii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of this Court.
3. Thereafter, the objection was filed by the respondent/complainant by giving reference of written complaint dated 21.10.2025 addressed to the police incharge of police station Jaspur. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the Investigating Agency by enclosing the statement of the victim and other witnesses.
4. The learned Counsel for the complainant on 2 2025:UHC:11671 the previous date placed before this Court certain photographs regarding the marriage of the present applicant with another lady. In addition to this, certain WhatsApp messages have also been placed before this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant also pointed out that after obtaining the interim protection by the Coordinate Bench, on 24.10.2025 the applicant married with another lady.
5. Today, the applicant and the complainant are present in court.
6. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant submits that though in para-6, specific averment has been given that after marriage of one sister, he will marry with the complainant but the complainant made a very big issue of marriage and is forcing the applicant to get married, due to which his family members annoyed and settled the marriage of the applicant with another lady.
7. In the anticipatory bail application, the FIR was not annexed but in the counter affidavit filed by the State, FIR has been placed before this Court by the Investigating Officer which is annexed as CA-4. There are the allegations with regard to the threatening to the victim and to make their video viral in social platform. 3
2025:UHC:11671
8. Mr. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State, on instructions, apprised to this Court that after thorough investigation and collecting credible evidence now the charge sheet has been filed.
9. Admittedly, in para-6 the applicant clearly stated that after the marriage of his sister he will marry with the complainant, though in para-7, he further stated that subsequent thereto the family members of the applicant were annoyed with the victim and their family members and are now against their marriage. It appears from the statement as given in para-7 that it is nothing but an afterthought.
10. Apart from this admittedly the interim protection was granted by the Coordinate Bench on 19.09.2025 and only thereafter the applicant married with another lady on 24.10.2025. This aspect further clearly reveals that a misleading statement has been given in para -7 particularly when in para-6 he undertakes that he will marry with the complainant.
11. Now be that as it may, the investigation has already been completed and the Investigating Agency after collecting all material have filed the charge sheet meaning thereby there are sufficient material to constitute the cognizable offence.
4
2025:UHC:11671
12. Apart from this, this Court is of the view, that by giving a misleading statement firstly the petitioner procure interim protection and thereafter married with another lady, and as such it is clear that the petitioner has not approached with clear hands. Apart from this the applicant misused the interim bail granted by the Coordinate Bench since immediately thereafter he married with another lady despite the fact that in para-6 he in fact assure to the complaint that he will marry with her.
13. Thus, in view of the observation as above, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The interim protection granted by the Coordinate Bench on 19.09.2025 is also vacated forthwith.
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Nahid 5