Uttarakhand High Court

Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 May, 2025

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                        01st MAY, 2025
      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.428 of 2025

Jahangeer Alam alias Jahangeer Nathipuria and Others
                                            .....Applicants

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand                          .....Respondent


Counsel for the Applicants     :      Mr. Parikshit Saini,
                                      Advocate.
Counsel for the State          :      Mr. Pradeep Lohani,
                                      Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Informant      :      Mr. Siddhartha Sah,
                                      Advocate.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The present Application has been filed by the

applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.135 of

2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District

Haridwar under Sections 351(2), 352, 74 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, "Act, 1989").

2. According to the First Information Report dated

19.04.2025, the informant is the Village UP-Pradhan. A

meeting was held on 17.04.2025. After the meeting, the

applicants abused the informant and assaulted her intending

to outrage her modesty.

3. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for

applicants, Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for

State and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for

informant.

4. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder, on

instructions, has sought three weeks' time to file objection

to the Anticipatory Bail Application.

5. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, has also sought

three weeks' time to file objection to the Anticipatory Bail

Application.

6. Time is granted.

7. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, contended that the

alleged incident did not take place at the spot. Applicants

have been falsely implicated in the present matter. After the

meeting, the informant went with her husband on his

scooter. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence

under the provisions of the Act, 1989 are missing in the First

Information Report. It has not been mentioned in the First

Information Report that the informant is the member of the

Scheduled Caste.

8. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, has relied upon a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Shajan Skaria

Vs. State of Kerala and Another", 2024 SCC OnLine SC

2249.

9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel

for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the

case, as an ad-interim measure, it is directed that in the

event of arrest of the applicants Jahangeer Alam alias

Jahangeer Nathipuria, Vasu, Mohd. Danish and Aslam, they

shall be released on interim bail on executing a personal

bond of Rs.30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the

like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer, subject to the

following conditions:-

(i) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating

Agency and they shall make themselves available

for interrogation by a police officer as and when

required;