Uttarakhand High Court
M.K. Tiwari Alias Swami Mohanand ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 849 OF 2023
M.K. Tiwari alias Swami Mohanand and another. .........Applicant.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. .......Respondent.
Counsel for the applicants: Ms. Sangeeta Adhikari Patni,
learned counsel for the
applicant.
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following
Order: (per Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.43 of
2023, in respect of the offence cognizable under Section 427
IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public
Property Act 1984, registered at P.S. - Lohaghat, District -
Champawat.
2. The counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR
relates to an incident, which happened on 03.09.2023,
however, the FIR was lodged on 07.09.2023. Although the
complainant is a Government Officer, being a Block
Development Officer, but he has not given any justification
as to why on such a belated stage, the FIR was lodged.
3. The counsel for the applicants also submits that the
applicant no.1, since 2008, is taking care of Temple, namely,
Risheshwar Mandir, Lohaghat, Champawat, and is residing
in the temple premises, and as far as the applicant no.2 is
concerned, he is a disciple of applicant no.1.
4. The counsel for the applicants further submits that, in
fact, some land mafias want to grab the property of the
temple. Apart from this, counsel for the applicants submits
that a civil suit, being OS No.22 of 2021, M.K. Tiwari@
Swami Mohnanand Vs. Prahlad Singh, was filed, and the
said suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated
16.08.2023 in favour of the applicants by granting permanent
injunction and restraining the defendant from interfering
with the possession of applicants and also to restrain them
from interfering with the religious activities.
5. I have perused the judgment and decree, which is
appended along with anticipatory bail application.
6. All these aspects are required to be considered after
inviting the objection(s) from the State.
7. Let the objection(s) be filed by the State within a period
of two weeks from today.
8. List this matter on 06.10.2023.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion
on the merit of this case, this Court directs that in the event
of arrest of the present applicants, they shall be released on
interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond by
each of them to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject
to the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall not approach, in any
manner, whatsoever, the victims or any other
witnesses in the case.
(ii) They shall cooperate with the Investigating
Agency. They shall not leave the country without
the permission of the concerned court.
(iii) If the applicants will not cooperate with the
Investigation, the State Counsel is free to move
an application for cancellation of this interim
anticipatory bail.
(iv) They shall deposit their passports, if any, with
the trial Court within a week. The passports may
only be returned by the order of the Court
concerned. In case the applicants do not have
passports, they shall give an undertaking in
respect of the aforesaid conditions before the
Court concerned.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
R.Bisht
