Rahul Anna And Others........ ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 20 February, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Anticipatory Bail Application No. 863 of 2025


Rahul Anna and others........ Applicants
                           Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another                           ........Respondents

                        with
           Anticipatory Bail Application No. 864 of 2025


Kaman Anna and another                                      ........ Applicants
                           Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another                           ........Respondents

                        with
           Anticipatory Bail Application No. 974 of 2025
Vipin Singh Sirola                                         ........ Applicant
                           Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another            ........Respondents
                      with
        Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1081 of 2025


Rajendra Singh and another     ........ Applicants
                           Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another         ........Respondents

Present:
Mr. D.S. Mehta learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned
Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.2.



Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. All these four anticipatory bail applications have been moved by the accused persons, against whom the First Information Report was lodged on 27.07.2025 bearing FIR No. 0003 of 2025, Police Station Kanalichina, District Pithoragarh, wherein, Kaman Anna, Sunil Anna, Vijay Bhandari, Ajay

Bhandari and Rahul Anna have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 140(3), 191(3) and 324(2) of BNS, 2023. In all these anticipatory bail applications, the applicants have been granted interim bail by the Coordinate Bench with 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.

(ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of this Court.

2. On perusal of the aforesaid conditions, as stipulated by the Coordinate Bench while granting interim bail, it is very clear that the applicants were granted interim bail subject to this condition that they will not leave the country without prior permission of this Court. In this matter, what has happened is that there was no progress investigation a writ petition bearing WPCRL No. 841 of 2025, was filed which came up before the Coordinate Bench on 05.08.2025 and the Coordinate Bench in paragraph no.4 observed as under:-

"From perusal of the FIR, the charges appear to be very serious involving the charge to the extent of attempt to murder. The allegations which have been levelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the Investigating Agency are quite serious."

3. While observing as aforesaid, the Coordinate Bench granted three days' time to the State counsel to bring on record

as to what has happened after lodging of the FIR and as to why the respondent nos. 4 to 8, who are, in fact, the accused persons, have not been arrested so far in such a heinous crime. Thereafter, the matter again came up before the Coordinate Bench on 11.08.2025, wherein, this Court observed as under:-

"3. Vide order dated 05.08.2025, State counsel was granted three days' time to bring on record as to what has happened after lodging of the FIR and as to why the respondent nos.4 to 8 have not been arrested so far, in such a heinous crime.

4. Today learned State counsel, on instructions, submitted that according to Investigating Officer the medical report is not being provided by the informant to the Investigating Officer and even the statement of Doctor has not been recorded so far.

5. This appears to be such strange phenomena as it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to bring the documents on record and to proceed with the investigation.

6. Apparently, it shows that the Investigating Officer is not conducting the investigation properly.

7. It is also noted by this Court in its earlier order that the Investigating Officer is hand in glove with respondent nos.4 to 8."

4. Subsequently, the aforesaid WPCRL NO. 841 of 2025 was disposed of finally on 22.08.2025 and while disposing this petition, the Coordinate Bench observed as under:-

"7. Among the star witnesses, including the injured, statements have been recorded and statement have also been recorded of the concerned Medical Officer, who conducted the medical examination of the injured person; she further makes a submission

that since the injuries are observed to be in grave nature infected on the vital part of the body of the injured, investigation is, accordingly, being conducted in such consideration. She further submits that there are three vital witnesses that are yet to be examined, they are supposed to be eye- witnesses of the incident in the present matter and soon after, as per the time prescribed under the law, the 2025:UHC:7460 conclusion of the investigation will be done and the charge-sheet in appropriate offences will be submitted before the concerned court.

8. In view of the observations made above, this Court is satisfied that the matter may be concluded as far as the charge-sheet is concerned, as per the time prescribed under the law."

5. Now in these anticipatory bail applications counter affidavit has been filed by the complainant placing on record certain photographs of the injured and on perusal of the same, it reveals that all the three injured persons sustained grievous injuries, that too on the most vital part, i.e. on head, and this aspect has also been observed by the Coordinate Bench in its order in the writ petition filed by the respondent/complainant.

6. The stay vacation application has been filed by the respondent/complainant way back on 10.08.2025, which is pending for consideration since then.

7. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that since there was a threat

perception from these accused persons and the stay vacation application could not be decided, and furthermore the I.O. concerned was also hand in glove with the applicants as also observed by the Coordinate Bench in its order, the complainant approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 16481 of 2025 and Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the SLP on 12.12.2025 and while disposing of the SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in its order that the High Court would take up the matter on the next date fixed and finally decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant also. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed in its order that if there is a security threat to the life and property of the complainant and his family members, it shall be open for him to file an appropriate application before the concerned Superintendent of Police of the District, who shall look into the matter and insure that the complainant and his family members are duly protected.

8. The matter was listed earlier on 18.02.2026, but on that day, due to paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up and on the request of learned counsel for the complainant, the matter is posted today on priority basis because of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

9. During arguments, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General informed to this Court that the accused applicant Sunil Singh, S/o Rajendra Singh, has left to Kuwait without seeking any leave from the Court and not only this, even no such prior information was given to the concerned I.O. and Court.

10. Apparently, the Coordinate Bench, while granting interim bail, stipulated a condition that the applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court, but the accused applicant Sunil Singh left the country without leave of the Court and this, apparently, is a serious issue. In such an eventuality, first of all this Court wants that Sunil Singh shall remain present in Court.

11. List all these cases on 23.02.2026. On that day, the applicant no.2 of the Anticipatory Bail Application No. 864 of 2025 namely Sunil Singh, S/o Rajendra Singh shall remain present in the Court.

12. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant is not aware about this fact that whether Sunil Singh has left India or not.

13. Since Mr. D.S. Mehta is the counsel for the applicant, he shall instruct his client to be remain present in Court.

14. By 23.02.2026, Mr. Sandhu may also get instructions about the status of the investigation and also apprise to this Court as to whether these applicants, while on interim bail, cooperated with the Investigating Officer or not.

(Rakesh Thapliyal,J.) 20.02.2026 Nahid