Uttarakhand High Court
Madan Mohan Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10380-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
20TH NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION (CRL) No. 1389 OF 2025
Madan Mohan Joshi .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Anmol
Sandhu, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Joshi,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ayush Gaur and Ms. Mrinal
Kanwar (through V.C.) for the
caveator / complainant.
JUDGMENT :
(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the State.
2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has filed into the
Court the report of the Circle Officer dated 16.11.2025 and a
copy of another report addressed by the Circle Officer,
Ramnagar, District Nainital to the Joint Director (Law).
3. The petitioner, in the above petition, has sought for
the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned first information
report dated 23-10-2025 being FIR No. 0382 of
2025, for the offences punishable under section 109
& 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police
Station Ramnagar, District Nainital (contained as
Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).
2025:UHC:10380-DB
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in
connection with impugned first information report
dated 23-10-2025 being FIR No. 0382 of 2025, for
the offences punishable under section 109 & 190 of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station
Ramnagar, District Nainital (contained as Annexure
no. 1 to this writ petition).
iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
4. From a reading of the prayer, it is apparent that the
petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR itself and the second
relief, sought for, is not to arrest the petitioner in connection
with the FIR registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 109 and 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. Section 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as 'BNS') reads as under:-
"109. Attempt to murder. (1) Whoever does any act
with such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and
if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
When any person offending under sub-section (1) is
under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt
is caused, be punished with death or with imprisonment
for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's
natural life."
2025:UHC:10380-DB
6. Section 190 of BNS reads as under:-
"190. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty
of offence committed in persecution of common
object.-If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object
of that assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the
time of the committing of that offence, is a member of
the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
7. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner
received information about the illegal transportation of cow-
meat; that he immediately informed the police and the forest
officers at 09:05 A.M. and 09:07 A.M. and; that he being an
animal lover, he rushed to the spot and states that he started
live Facebook telecast of the incident by 09:12 A.M. It is his
case that the video would demonstrate that he is requesting
to the mob and trying to placate the angry mob not to assault
the victim, i.e. the driver of the vehicle in which the meat was
being transported; that he being an informant himself and he
having attempted to placate and save the victim, the act of
naming him in the FIR is mischievous and with an ulterior
motive; that he had contested for the post of Chairman, Nagar
Palika Ramnagar; that he is a law abiding citizen and; that the
attempt by the police to arrest him is wholly illegal.
8. Per contra, leaned Deputy Advocate General would
submit that the complainant, who is none other than the wife
2025:UHC:10380-DB
of the injured victim, has named the petitioner amongst
others; that attempts have been made by the police to
investigate the petitioner, but the petitioner has been
successfully evading and avoiding the police; that earlier
notice was issued to the petitioner to join for investigation and
after he failed to join the investigation, the I.O. approached
the jurisdictional Magistrate and an NBW was also issued; that
despite the issuance of NBW, the petitioner failed to cooperate
and left with no option and they have now initiated
proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS to proclaim him as
an absconder.
9. In reply, learned counsel would submit that he was
instrumental in placating the mob; that the complainant, i.e.
the wife of the injured driver was not an eye witness and; that
she has named him on hearsay.
10. Having heard the learned counsels, we have
perused the reports submitted by the Circle Officer.
11. The report details the role of the petitioner. The
report details that call was received from a person named
Nasir on the Emergency No. 112 stating that certain activists
had stopped the vehicle carrying buffalo meat and are
assaulting the driver of the vehicle and; that reacting to the
call on Emergency No. 112, the police rushed to the spot and
saved the driver from being lynched. It is further stated that
2025:UHC:10380-DB
the petitioner was instrumental in instigating the mob through
his false and unverified claims about the buffalo meat being
cow meat and that a community was indulging in cow-
slaughter; that the petitioner also went live with his social
media face-book handle and; that the same led to the
gathering of the mob and the police suspect him to be
responsible for instigating the mob and doing live telecast
near mob lynching; that the videos have been circulated by
others leading to a situation where huge numbers from both
communities arrived at the police station; that 16 accused
have been identified, 13 have been arrested and 3 are
evading arrest including the petitioner.
12. As regards the conduct of the petitioner, the Circle
Officer has noted that he is continuously hiding from police
and evading the arrest; that multiple raids at his house and
other potential places have not yielded any result; that the
NBW issued by the Courts have also not been respected; that
if he is given freedom, he will use his clout to harass the
victims and would try to derail the investigation and hence,
the petition is vehemently opposed.
13. Learned Deputy Advocate General would place
reliance on the ruling rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401.
2025:UHC:10380-DB
14. Learned counsel for the third respondent places
reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Srikant
Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another
reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382.
15. In Neeharika's case (supra), the three Judge Bench
has ruled against interim orders being granted not to arrest
accused pending investigation, more particularly when the
Court is not inclined to grant the relief of quashment and; that
the remedy would be to file an Anticipatory Bail Application.
16. The fact remains that the victim and his wife are
localites and residents of the same town and have identified
and named the petitioner as one of the perpetrators. The
documents in the possession of the victim certify the meat as
buffalo meat. The fact remains that the petitioner admits his
presence in the place of occurrence. The fact also remains
that the petitioner admits the live face-book telecast. His
defense is that he acted as good-Samaritan and did not
indulge in assaulting the victim.
17. The photographs clearly show bleeding injuries on
the head and other parts of the body of victim.
18. Be that as it may, we do not pronounce it as a
conclusive finding and it is a matter for investigation and trial.
Where the petitioner has been named of a conginzable
2025:UHC:10380-DB
offence, it would not be appropriate and legal for this Court to
pronounce on the correctness of the allegations at the stage of
FIR. The provisions of law, more particularly the provisions of
Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 clearly enumerate as to when a
person can be arrested. In the event of any violation he can
certainly approach the courts immediately. It would be
preempting the fair investigation if the hands of the police are
tied down, more so, when the petitioner himself admits his
presence in the place of occurrence. That apart, the ruling of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay (supra) clearly
lays down that grant of Anticipatory Bail or protection to a
person found in defiance of lawful orders is unsustainable.
The instant petition is filed after NBW's were issued and after
the application to declare him a proclaimed offender was filed
by the police.
17. In view of the fact that the warrant has been issued
on 03.11.2025 and the petitioner has not attempted to have
the same addressed in a manner known to law, the ruling of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay (supra) would
squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant
case.
18. That apart the complainant has produced a copy of
a post made by the petitioner on his FaceBook account. He
claims that he is going to start a "Kranti" (revolution), not
2025:UHC:10380-DB
only here but across the country/other places. In other words
he is deriding popular & democratically elected governments
and the same is condemnable. In that view, the petition does
not merit consideration and is, accordingly, rejected.
19. It is made clear that the observations herein above
are made for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition
only and are not to be construed as a conclusive finding.
Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.
_______________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 20th November, 2025
Rathour
PRAVINDR
A SINGH
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779
d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed
, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
RATHOUR
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A
40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5
C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
Date: 2025.11.21 15:52:27 +05'30'
